S.K. Jain vs P. Subba Rao
1987 Latest Caselaw 297 Del

JUDGMENT

C.L. Chaudbry, J.

(1) This is the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 13,64,080.00 and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from releasing any of the pictures mentioned in the plaint, produced by them, in violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties. The allegations, as set up in the plaint, are that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of film distribution, exhibition and exploitation of motion pictures in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and they are controlling a number of cinema halls under hire agreements in the territory of Delhi and U.P. and other parts of the country. The plaintiff has even produced pictures and has also financed a number of pictures right from the stage of production. It is stated that defendant No. 1 Shri P. Suba Rao is the sole proprietor of P.S.R. Pictures and is carrying on production of pictures. Defendant No. 2 Shri P. Balaji is the sole proprietor of M/S Balaji Arts and is in the same trade. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and, in fact, they are carrying on family business, however, under different banners. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and is basically a housewife, but her name is used by the defendants as Benami, while defendants I and 2 are actually running the business of Bhagaya Lakshmi Movies and other films in the name of defendant No. 3, who is virtually unaware of film trade. It is stated that on 15.9. 1982, defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff entered into a business agreement in respect of picture titled 'EK Nai PAHELI', produced by defendant No. 1. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff had agreed to advance Rs. 25,25,000.00 and in turn, the plaintiff was to receive distribution and exploitation rights exclusively for Delhi-U.P, territory for 11 years from the date of release of the said picture for the said territory or in any part thereof. It is claimed that the plaintiff in furtherance of the agreement had given a sum of Rs. 6,50,000.00 by means of cheques and drafts. Since there was delay in the production of the picture, the plaintiff terminated the agreement and claimed the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs, which was due to him in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement. It is further stated that on 9.4.1984, there was a settlement between the parties wherein defendants I and 2 admitted that Rs. 8,50,000.00 were due to the plaintiff and they agreed to pay this amount before the release of Hindi film 'MERA JAWAB'. The plaintiff by letter dated 6.9.1984, demanded the amount from the defendants. By letter dated 10.9.1984, the defendants assured the plaintiff that picture 'MERA JAWAB' would be released in October, 1984 and they would be clearing the dues of the plaintiff of Rs. 8,50,000.00 , together with interest, before the release of that picture. It is stated that in spite of repeated demands the defendants did not pay the amount. It is further stated that by letter dated 7.2.1985, the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 10,03,000.00 with interest @ 24% from 10.1.1985. It is stated that defendant No. 3 Mrs. P. Bhagayam is Benami and it is defendants 1 and 2 who are in fact producing, exhibiting and distributing the pictures. Defendant No. 3 vide letter dated 6.4 1986 had reassured, undertaken and agreed that the pictures 'JAI Durga MA' and 'JITE Hmn Shan SE' would not be released till the payment is made in terms of the assurance in the said letter. The claim of the plaintiff is stated to be Rs. 13,64,080.00 . The plaintiff stated that if the picture Durga MA. Jeete Hain Shan Se and De Do Mujhe Pyaar are permitted to be released, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and damage. The plaintiff further states that he has learnt from the trade magazines that the above-mentioned pictures ars about to be released. The defendants have no right to exploit the said pictures without fulfillling the assurance and covenants of the agreements entered into by the parties. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code for the grant of a temporary injunction.

(2) Defendants 1,2 and 3 are contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They have filed a joint written statement. It is pleaded in the written statement that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable because the amount as claimed by the plaintiff pertain to film EK: Nai PAHELI.

(3) It is further stated that defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. I and she is doing her own business with her own money taken in her own name from various financers. The allegation of Benami has been denied. It is further stated that the agreement dated 7.2.1985 was forced on defendant No. 1, but it had nothing to do with the liability of defendant No. 1. The agreement is a result of undue influence and coercion. It is further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the film Durga Ma and Jeete Hain Shan Se which belong to defendant No. 3. It is pleaded that the agreement dated 9.4.1984 was forced on defendant No 1. It is further stated that the commitment made by the defendant was under undue influence and coericon. The letter dated 6.4.1986 is alleged to have been got signed from defendant No. 3 by misrepresentation and a fraud had been practiced on her.

(4) So far as the claim of the plaintiff is concerened, there are admissions of the defendants. The case of defendants I and 2 is that the plaintiff got various confirmations from the defendants under undue influence and coercion. No material has been brought on record in support of this contention. Prima facie, I am of the view that the stand taken by the defendants is not tentable. The agreement dated 7.2.1985 reads as under : - "IN continuation of our Agreement dated 15.9.82 and our letter of arrangement dated 9th April 1984 we confirm the statement of account dated 10th January showing 1985 a debit balance of Rs. 10,03,000.00 (Rupees ten lakhs three thousand only) to be paid by us in respect of picture "Ek Nai Paheli" (Colour). In case we failed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10.03,000.00 (Rs. ten lakhs three thousand only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 24% from 10.1.1985 within three months of the signing of this arrangement of M/S Balaji Arts undertake and guarantee to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,03,000.00 (Rupees ten lakhs three thousand only) together with interest there- on at 24% before the release of their untitled picture 'Production No. 2' starring Rajeev Kapoor, Mandakini and others, music by Bhappi Lhairi directed by Manivanan and produced by P. Balaji under the banner of M/S Balaji Arts having their office at 32, Pinjala Subramaniam Road. T. Nagar Madras 600 017 in token of which they have also signed and confirmed this arrangement. In case of any disputes arising out of this arrangement, we hereby bind ourselves to have the disputes adjudicated upon and decided within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts only at New Delhi. The above terms and conditions of this arrangement are irrevocable. Kindly confirm by signing the duplicate of this arrangement. Thanking you. Agreed & Confirmed Yours faithfully, For M/S S.K. Jain & SONS. For P.S.R. Pictures sd/- (T.R. SHARMA) sd/- (P. Subba RAO) CONST. ATtorNEY. PROPRIEtor. Agreed & Confirmed To The Above For M/S Balaji Arts sd/- (P. Bala JI) PROPRIEtor."

(5) The letter dated 6.4.1986 by defendant No. 3 is also reproduced below :-- "WITH reference to the personal conversation we had with you recently and as conveyed to you, we will be paying you Rs. l,50,000.00 before Durga Ma release anywhere in India and Rs. 3,50,0000.00 will be paying you before "Jeete Hain Shan Se" premiere release anywhere in India, apart from the undertaken that was given to you by M/S Balaji Arts who will be paying you the amount agreed to be paid before the release of their under production movie " Dhe Do Mujhe Pyaar". Hope this finds you in order and request you to confirm the above as taken of your acceptance, Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Sree Bhagaya lakshmi Movies sd/- Proprietrix. Agreed & Confirmed : For M/S S.K. Jain & Sons sd/- Proprietor."

(6) Counsel for the defendants contended that the assurances and undertaking given by defendant No. 3 by means of writing dated 6.4.1986 was without consideration and it cannot be enforced. I do not subscribe to the contention of the counsel for the defendant. Prima facie, I am of the view that these assurances and undertakings given by the defendant No. 3, are by way of additional guarantee for the payment of the amount due from the defendants. She is the wife of defendant No. I and the mother of defendant No. 2. By virtue of this writing, she had undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 before the release of picture "Jeete Hain Shan Se". She is under obligation to pay this amount to the plaintiff before she can be allowed to release the picture "Jeete Hain Shan Se". It is the admitted case of the parties that the picture "Jeete Hain Shan Se" is going to be released shortly. In case the picture is released by the defendants without payment of the amount specified in the writing dated 6.4.1986 to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience is also in favor of the plaintiff because defendant No. 3 had expressly agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 before release of the picture. In the circumstances, I direct that the defendants will be entitled to release the film Jeete Hain Shan Se only after depositing a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 in this Court. Application is disposed of.