PVR PICTURE LTD Vs. STUDIO 18

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE summons in the suit and notice on the application. Mr. P. V. Dinesh accepts notice and summons; learned senior counsel for the defendants, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, submits that the interlocutory application may be heard without a reply. He also submits that the suit is not maintainable, since the plaintiff does not have any right to sue for injunction. In view of the statement, counsel argued on both maintainability of the suit, as well as merits of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, for grant of ad-interim injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff sues the defendant for specific performance of its obligation under a Distribution Term Sheet Agreement, dated 8th september, 2008, in respect of a movie SHORT KUT, for the "east Punjab" territory as known in the Film Trade, and further direction to the defendant to deliver the print and publicity materials for the movie, "upon receiving advance payment by signing a fresh license of exploitation rights agreement". Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from exhibiting or distributing, or releasing the said movie, is also sought. According to the suit averments, the parties (i. e. the plaintiff, referred to hereafter as "pvr" and the defendant, referred to hereafter as "studio 18")entered into a term sheet agreement, on 8-9-2008 ("the TSA" ). It was agreed, by the TSA, that PVR would be the exclusive licensee for distribution rights in respect of the cinematograph films, i. e. KIDNAP, GOLMAL RETURNS, dil KABBADDI, GHAJANI and SHORTKUT, for the East Punjab territory, as known in film trade parlance. This TSA specified that in respect of each film, publicity materials were to be given by Studio 18 and, likewise, for each film, PVR had to spend specified amounts towards advertisements, etc. The date (s) of release of each film were mentioned, in Part 5; another condition (clause 3) was that 21 days before the date of release, PVR had to pay 33% of the advance amount. The plaintiff is concerned here with the release of SHORTKUT.

(3.) PVR avers, and its counsel contends that the TSA amounted to an exclusive distributor's license, and all the conditions necessary for effectuating it, were present. It is argued that the TSA clearly records that the right granted was a license, for a period of one year, and that it was "exclusive". PVR submits that the TSA was in fact, implemented, since the prints were released by Studio 18, in respect of the other four films. Studio 18, therefore, cannot be heard to contend that the TSA was merely a memorandum of Understanding; it, on the contrary, contained all the necessary terms that an exclusive license should contain. Thus, PVR relies upon clauses 4 and 5 of the TSA. It also relies on the condition that the arrangement between the parties is "irrevocable"; for this purpose, reliance is placed on the following term: