NANDITA VIPUL KOTHARI Vs. CONTROLLER OF SALES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE under Rules 147 and 148 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.S.) Rules, 1980 is granted to the Plaintiffs to take out the Notice of Motion in terms of the draft Notice of Motion handed in. Defendants waive service of Notice of Motion. Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE plaintiff claims to be the producer of a T.V. Serial called "LEKIN WOH SUCH THA". She apparently entered into an agreement on 23rd June, 1998 with defendant No.3. By this agreement, the plaintiff has approached defendant No.3 for a slot for the telecast for the telecast of the serial for 26 episodes. Defendant No.3 had agreed to air the serial. Thereafter the plaintiff entered into an agreement on 14th July, 1998 with defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 by this agreement committed to provide the entire basic cost of production of Rs.2.65 lakhs per episode upto 13 episodes Rs.7 lakhs would be paid as advance for production of first 9 episodes. Defendant No.2 had also reserved the right to continue to provide further cost of production depending on the television ratings of the serial upto 13th Episode. From 14th episode onwards defendant No.2 agreed to pay Rs.3.25 lakhs per episode to the plaintiff provided the plaintiff causes the ratings of 14 (all adults) 4 city average on IMRB People Meter Videoscope failing which defendant No.2 will continue to pay Rs.2.65 lakhs per episode upto 26th episode. In return for this, the plaintiff by clause (f) of the agreement agreed that KIPL, Defendant No.2, shall have the rights to assign/re-assign, license the whole marketing rights or in part of the rights without the consent of the plaintiffs but all the payments to be collected by the plaintiff from defendant No.2. Under this agreement defendant No.2 has paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10.65 lakhs. Thereafter plaintiff entered into another agreement on 27th November, 1998 with defendant No.5. Under this agreement also the plaintiff assigned all the rights in favour of defendant No.5. The serial is being telecast regularly.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.5 cannot be acted upon as it was obtained from the plaintiff by duress/coercion. He submits that since the veracity of the agreement is in dispute the earning from the serial need to be protected. Thus the prayer for appointment of Receiver ought to be granted.