RAMNORD RESEARCH LAB PVT. LTD Vs. RANVIR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred with respect to the order dated 4th September, 2009 of the Executing Court directing the petitioner/judgment debtor to produce the complete negatives of six films before the Executing Court against the respondent/decree holder paying a sum of Rs.2,95,250/- by demand draft in the name of the petitioner/judgment debtor on the said date. The counsel for the parties were heard on 14th October, 2009, however since the pronouncement of the order was taking time and it was informed that the proceedings were listed before the Executing Court, the senior counsel for the respondent/decree holder had agreed not to insist upon any coercive action against the petitioner/judgment debtor before the Executing Court till the pronouncement of the order in this petition.

(2.) THE respondent/decree holder instituted the suit pleading that one Sh. Arabind Sen was the producer inter alia of six films; that he had died leaving the defendants No.1 & 2 in the suit (who are not parties to this petition) as his only natural heirs; that the said Sh. Arabind Sen had kept the negatives of the said six films in the custody of defendant No.3 in the suit (petitioner herein) which is a laboratory and where the producers of various films keep their negatives for preservation; that after the death of Sh. Arabind Sen, the defendants No.1 and 2 being his legal heirs had become the owners inter alia of the aforesaid six films and their negatives kept in the custody of the petitioner herein and had vide agreement sold the same to the respondent/plaintiff; that the respondent/plaintiff had as such become entitled to the negatives of the films in the custody of the petitioner herein and had become entitled thereto and had written to the petitioner in this regard but the petitioner had refused to transfer the negatives in the name of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff in the suit sought the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to the said negatives of the six films. The defendants 1 & 2 being the heirs of Sh. Arabind Sen did not contest the suit. The petitioner herein filed a written statement admitting that Sh. Arabind Sen had kept the negatives of the six films with the petitioner laboratory and stated that the said negatives could be given to whoever is the legal successor of Sh. Arabind Sen and against payment of Rs.6,05,451/- as on October, 1997 due to the petitioner towards charges forkeeping the said negatives. Several issues were framed in the suit and of which the issue No.8 was as to whether the amount of Rs.6,05,451/- as on October, 1997 was due to the petitioner in respect of the negatives lying with the petitioner. The petitioner however failed to lead any evidence in the suit. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 1st July, 2005. It was inter alia held that the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit; that the petitioner was only a trustee or agent of the owner of the negatives of the films and was required to preserve the same in proper condition subject to payment of appropriate charges; that the respondent/plaintiff thus though held entitled to the relief but subject to the payment of appropriate charges for preserving and keeping of the said six negatives to the petitioner; the respondent plaintiff had also admitted that the charges are payable to the petitioner. A decree for mandatory injunction was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder and against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to transfer in its record the negatives of the said pictures/films in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and to allow the respondent/plaintiff to remove the negatives from the laboratory of the petitioner; the decree for mandatory injunction was however subject to the payment of the appropriate charges of the upkeep and maintenance of the negatives to the petitioner by the plaintiff from the date of the agreement i.e. 26th February, 1994 (Exhibit PW1/1) by the legal heirs of Sh. Arabind Sen in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner was however not held entitled to any interest on the arrears so found to be due.

(3.) THE respondent/plaintiff/decree holder applied for execution against the petitioner only. It was pleaded that the respondent/decree holder had approached the petitioner for transfer of the negatives of the films in his name and for delivery thereof but the petitioner had refused to deliver the same without the payment of Rs.6,05,451/-due till October, 1997 and further storage charges of Rs.2,29,250/- due from 1st November, 1997 to 31st July, 2006. Subsequently in response to another demand from the respondent/decree holder, total storage charges of Rs.9,04,701/- were claimed by the petitioner. The respondent/decree holder thus alleged petitioner to be in default of the compliance of the decree for permanent and mandatory injunction.