DIPTI PAL Vs. TAPAS PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.M.A.T No. 2592 of 1991 was filed by the appellant Dipti Pal, who is the producer of the Bengali feature film "Anlarer Bhalobasa" tried against Sri Tapas Pal who bad played the role of 'Hero' in the said film. The dispute between the parties whether the producer can release the feature film "Antarei Bhalobasa" (referred to as the said film) without having the dialogues of the Hero Tapas Pal are dubbed recording his voice in the said film and to release the same with the voice of some other persons to be facts and circumstances of the case This appeal arose from an interim order of injunction passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta dated 8th August, 1990 by which the appellant had been restrained from releasing the said film without getting the voice dubbed by Tapas Pal, the opposite party herein Tapas Pal who acted ss Hero in the said film, filed a suit being Tide Suit No. 1862 of 1990 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the appellant Dipti Pal and Eastern India Motion Picture Association for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from releasing the said film without recording and/or dubbing the voice of the plaintiff, Tapas Pal in terms of control entered into by and between the paries and without complying with the order passed by the Joint Conciliation Committee of the Western India Motion Picture Association dated 15/16th Oct., 1990. The producer Dipti Pal also filed a suit being Title Suit No...........against Bastern India Motion Picture Association for declaration that the Eastern India Motion Picture Association has no manner of right to initiate any proceeding under clause 24 of the Articles of Eastern India Motion Picture Association (herein referred to as EIMPA) against the producer. In that suit filed by the producer, the actor Tapas Pal was not made a party, but subsequently on application being filed by Tapas Pal for additional party, be was made a party.

(2.) the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding Ibis appeal are as follows ;

(3.) The outdoor shooting took place In various place and it it not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter in details, Inasmuch as, the dispute started after the outdoor shooting was completed and the stage of dubbing and/or recording the voice reached. For the purpose of recording the voice of the actor and the actress and for recording musical effects, the producer booked National Film Development Corporation (herein referred to ai NFDC) (Dubbing studio) for the purpose of dubbing of the raid bengali feature film which war required la be booked for six months and that in the instant case, NFDC (dubbing studio) was booked from 1st June, 1990 to 18th June, 1990 and in that period dubbing has to be completed. There were some allegations sod counter allegations by the producer and the actor against each other. According to the producer, the actor intended to take some financial and/or other advantage at the time of shooting and that the actor during such shooting, did something for which the shooting could not be continued peacefully and according to the desire of the Director, On the contrary, the allegation of the actor Tapas Pal war that the allegation made by the producer were all false and frevolous. It is not necessary to go into the aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, there are matters required lo he gone into by the court below during the hearing of the suit which is pending This appeal is against an interlocutory order patted by the court below by which the producer had been restrained from releasing the old feature film without recording the voice of the actor Tapas Pal. There is no scope for going into the matter in details and to make final adjudication on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties.