MAHAMAYA TALKIES Vs. EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURES ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mahamaya Talkies purchased the above Cinema by a conveyance dated July 25, 1973. The petitioner paid the municipal dues in Sept. 1973 and obtained a licence from the District Magistrate Dinhata on or about Sept. II, 1973. The petitioner applied to the defendant no. 1 Eastern India Motion Pictures Association Limited for membership as an exhibitor by filling up the membership application form and paid a sum of Rs. 200/ - for one years fees for such membership. The petitioner started exhibiting films on and from Oct. 1, 1973. On the basis of such application the petitioner's name appeared as a provisional member in the list of members of the defendant no. 1 which was published for its members on Oct. 30, 1973. On Nov. 13, 1973 the application of the petitioner for - membership of the above Association was considered by the Executive Committee of the defendant no. 1. The Committee thereupon unanimously held that " in view of the High Court's order as duly intimated by Messrs. S. C. Roy Chowdhury & Co. it was not possible for the Committee to entertain the application for membership of M/s. Mahamaya Talkies, Dinhata, at this stage,"

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the defendant no. 1, in utter violation of the bye-laws of the Association and in contravention of the rules of natural justice purported to terminate the petitioner's membership without even allowing the petitioner to explain its position in relation to the purchase of the said Cinema house and thereby prevented the petitioner from carrying on business as an exhibitor of films. The petitioner further contends that upon enquires the petitioner has come to learn that one Parimal Sarkar, a member of the defendant no. 3 Banishree Pictures who have a claim against the predecessor - in interest of the plaintiff in respect of the cinema house, had a hand in the matter of cancellation of the membership. The said Parimal Sarkar happens to be an influential member of the said Association and in fact a Vice-president of the said Association for the year 1973-74. The petitioner also contends that as a result of the action taken by the Association the business of the petitioner has totally stopped and would continue to remain so until the membership facilities would be extended once again to the petitioner. The nature of the business is such that no non - member gets the facility to procure good films. The petitioner by its letter asked for holding a meeting so that the petitioner might represent its views upon notice to the said solicitors M/s. S. C. Roy Chowdhury & Co. at whose instance this action had been taken, to remove any doubt, as to the title, which might have been present in the mind of the persons in authority and control of the defendant no. 1. In spite of the said demand for natural justice have been advised that the Honourable High Court has appointed Sri S. Brahmachari, Advocate as Receiver of Messrs. Lakshmi Talkies Dinhata and since the matter is pending before the Court we are unable to extend your provisional membership which please note."

(3.) The petitioner, accordingly, prayed for an order of injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from giving effect or any further effect to the said order dated Nov. 29, 1973 passed by the said executive committee of the defendant no. 1 till the disposal of the suit.