OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 13,64,080.00 and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from releasing any of the pictures mentioned in the plaint, produced by them, in violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties. The allegations, as set up in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of motion pictures in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and they are controlling a number of cinema halls under hire agreements in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and other parts of the country. The plaintiff has even produced pictures and has also financed a number of pictures right from the stage of production. It is stated that defendant No. 1 Shri P. Suba Rao is the sole proprietor of P.S.R. Pictures and is carrying on production of pictures. Defendant No. 2 Shri P. Balaji is the sole proprietor of M/S Balaji Arts and is in the same trade. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and, in fact, they are carrying on family business, however, under different banners. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and is basically a housewife, but her name is used by the defendants as Benami, while defendants I and 2 are actually running the business of Bhagaya Lakshmi Movies and other films in the name of defendant No. 3, who is virtually unaware of film trade. It is stated that on 15.9. 1982, defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff entered into a business agreement in respect of picture titled 'EK NAI PAHELI', produced by defendant No. 1. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff had agreed to advance Rs. 25,25,000.00 and in turn, the plaintiff was to receive distribution and exploitation rights exclusively for Delhi-U.P, territory for 11 years from the date of release of the said picture for the said territory or in any part thereof. It is claimed that the plaintiff in furtherance of the agreement had given a sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 by means of cheques and drafts. Since there was delay in the produciton of the picture, the plaintiff terminated the agreement and claimed the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs, which was due to him in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement. It is further stated that on 9.4.1984, there was a settlement between the parties wherein defendants I and 2 admitted that Rs. 8,50,000.00 were due to the plaintiff and they agreed to pay this amount before the release of Hindi film 'MERA JAWAB'. The plaintiff by letter dated 6.9.1984, demanded the amount from the defendants. By letter dated 10.9.1984, the defendants assured the plaintiff that picture 'MERA JAWAB' would be released in October, 1984 and they would be clearing the dues of the plaintiff of Rs. 8,50,000.00 , together with interest, before the release of that picture. It is stated that in spite of repeated demands the defendants did not pay the amount. It is further stated that by letter dated 7.2.1985, the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 10,03,000.00 with interest @ 24% from 10.1.1985. It is stated that defendant No. 3 Mrs. P. Bhagayam is Benami and it is defendants 1 and 2 who are in fact producing, exhibiting and distributing the pictures. Defendant No. 3 vide letter dated 6.4 1986 had reassured, undertaken and agreed that the pictures 'JAI DURGA MA' and 'JITE HMN SHAN SE' would not be released till the payment is made in terms of the assurance in the said letter. The claim of the plaintiff is stated to be Rs. 13,64,080.00 . The plaintiff stated that if the picture DURGA MA. JEETE HAIN SHAN SE and DE DO MUJHE PYAAR are permitted to be released, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and damage. The plaintiff further states that he has learnt from the trade magazines that the above-mentioned pictures ars about to be released. The defendants have no right to exploit the said pictures without fulfilling the assurance and covenants of the agreements entered into by the parties. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for the grant of a temporary injunction.

(2.) Defendants 1,2 and 3 are contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They have filed a joint written statement. It is pleaded in the written statement that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable because the amount as claimed by the plaintiff pertain to film EK: NAI PAHELI.

(3.) It is further stated that defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. I and she is doing her own business with her own money taken in her own name from various financers. The allegation of Benami has been denied. It is further stated that the agreement dated 7.2.1985 was forced on defendant No. 1, but it had nothing to do with the liability of defendant No. 1. The agreement is a result of undue influence and coercion. It is further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the film DURGA MA and JEETE HAIN SHAN SE which belong to defendant No. 3. It is pleaded that the agreement dated 9.4.1984 was forced on defendant No 1. It is further stated that the commitment made by the defendant was under undue influence and coericon. The letter dated 6.4.1986 is alleged to have been got signed from defendant No. 3 by misrepresentation and a fraud had been practised on her.