SHALIMAR VIDEO CO Vs. SHALIMAR ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed against the order dated 16. 3. 2004 passed by the learned chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in la. No. 628 of 2009 in O. S. No. 86 of 2009. The appellants in those two appeals are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 3 and 4 mentioned in these appeals are defendants 3 and 4, and no relief was claimed against them. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) BROADLY stated the averments in the plaint are as under : the plaintiff is the proprietary concern carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling the DVDs and VCDs of popular Telugu and Hindi Films. The 2nd defendant procured exclusive licence to manufacture, market and sell the DVDs and VCDs, in respect of vast number of telugu and Hindi films. Through a letter dated 19. 11. 2005, the 2nd defendant assigned the rights as regards 926 Telugu and Hindi films for a consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/-, and that the amount was paid through cheques of different dates. The 2nd defendant is a partnership firm. The 1st respondent is a proprietary concern established by Mohd. Ashraf, who is the son of Managing Partner of the 2nd defendant. Without there being any licence or authorization, from the plaintiff, the 1st defendant started manufacturing, marketing and selling the VCDs of the films in respect of which, the rights were assigned in favour of the plaintiff. Reference is made to various arrangements said to have been made among the members of the family etc. The suit was filed for (a) declaration, that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled for the rights mentioned above, in respect of 926 Telugu and Hindi films for a period of 20 years; (b) perpetual injunction against defendants 1 and 2, and anyone claiming through them, from manufacturing, marketing and selling the videos for the films, and (c)mandatory injunction, directing defendants 1 and 2 to deposit all the copies of DVDs and VCDs, in respect of the said films in their possession.

(3.) THE plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 628 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, against defendants 1 and 2. Almost the entire contents of the plaint were repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the I. A. The defendants 1 and 2 opposed the application on several grounds. They disputed the existence of any licence in favour of the plaintiff and asserted their exclusive rights. Through the order under appeal, the trial Court granted temporary injunction against the defendants. Hence, these appeals.