PICTURE FINANCIERS Vs. MINNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is an advertising company and is engaged by others for the purpose of publicity. In connection with the picture known as Thazhamboo, admittedly produced by Defendants 2 to 5, the Plaintiff's case is that he made such advertisements as instructed by the second Defendant in July, 1965 and also pursuant to instructions regarding the said publicity given to him mostly by the third Defendant on behalf of Defendants 2 to 5 at the outset, and then by the first Defendant directly, as by then the first Defendant became the financier of the said picture and secured what is commonly known as the world rights over the said picture, pursuant to the financing agreement between himself and Defendants 2 to 5. The Plaintiff claims that he has made several advertisements in several dailies and prominent journals and in connection thereto, he would state, that Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally promised to pay for such services done by him. According to him the necessary particulars were furnished to the Defendants from time to time and the first Defendant knew about such publicity made by the Plaintiff and his specific case is that the first Defendant, while entering into the financing agreement with the second Defendant, has undertaken to meet all the outstanding claims including the expenses relatable to the publicity of the picture. It is claimed that the first Defendant paid to the Plaintiff by cheque two sums of Rs. 2,000 each, on 12th October 1965 and 22nd October 1965 and after having appropriated the said amounts, a sum of Rs. 10,970.70 is due by the Defendants both under the express contract as pleaded above and in law under Sec. 70 of the Contract Act.

(2.) The first Defendant denied that he gave any such instructions to the Plaintiff in the matter of publicity of the picture Thazhamboo. He no doubt admits that he was the financier of the said picture and Exhibit B -4, the finance agreement does not refer to any clause or stipulation where -under he has to pay the publicity charges to be incurred by the producer of the picture, as such financier. He would state that the sums of Rs. 2,000 paid by him on two occasions were made as financier and under instructions from the producers and that did not, in any way, reflect upon any obligation undertaken by him to pay the publicity charges as claimed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) The other Defendants filed written statements denying liability and denying any privity of contract as between themselves and the Plaintiff in the matter of the publicity expenses which is the subject -matter of the suit. The 5th Defendant inter alia would aver in his written statement that under a supplementary agreement, dated 19th October 1965, it was the first Defendant, who was to incur such publicity expenses and debit the same to the second Defendant's accounts as financier.