MAGNUM FILMS Vs. MOTION PICTURE ASSOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of IAs.7412 & 8907/1998.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code (IA No. 7412/98) seeking adinterim injunction. IA No. 8907/98, is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants No. 2 and 3 seeking vacation of the ex parte injunction order 'dated 26.8. 1998. The defendants 2 and 3 have also filed anapplication undersection 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking stay of the suit on the ground of pendency of dispute before the arbitral Tribunal.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, on 27.7.1998, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 2 where under the plaintiff acquired sole and exclusive rights of distribution and exhibition of Hindi feature film 'RAJAJI' for the territories of Delhi and U.P. circuits for a total consideration of Rs. 90 lacs. As per terms of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 5,01,000.00 was to be paid immediately on signing of the said picture and a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.l at the time of registration of the said picture to settle the claim of the defendant No. 3. On 27.7.1998, the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,01,000.00 to the defendant No. 2 vide cheque No. 0217771 dated 27.7.1998. On the same day, the defendant No. 2 addressed a letter to the defendant No.l intimating assignment of rights in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said film. As regards the payment of Rs. 6 lacs, the defendant No. 2 intimated the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was to be refunded to the defendant No. 3 on account of refundable advance of the Hindi feature film TARAZU', which was earlier produced by the defendant No. 2 and a sum of Rs. one lac was to be paid to the defendant No. 3, which was received as a token money against the film 'RAJAJI' from the said defendant as the earlier agreement between the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3 in respect of the said film has since been mutually cancelled by the parties. Thereafter, on 27.7.1998, the plaintiff applied to the defendant No.l for registration of the said film, which was opposed by the defendant No. 3 on the ground of its agreement with the defendant No. 2 in this regard. In the meantime, the defendant No. 3 offered some higher amount to the defendant No. 2 and they conspired to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the said film. Now, the defendant No. 2 and 3 are making concerted efforts to get the said film registered in the name of the defendant No. 3.