M/S Nahata Ltd. vs M/S Raamraj Kala Mandir & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2278 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CS(OS) NO. 3516/1992

                                        Date of Decision : 29.4.2010


M/S NAHATA LTD.                                    ......       Plaintiff
                                  Through:   Mr.Pramod        Aggarwal,
                                             Advocate.

                                   Versus

M/S RAAMRAJ KALA MANDIR & ANR.      ...... Defendants
                             Through: Mr.S.K.Mehra,
                                             Adv. for the defendant no.1.
                                             Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee for
                                             Ms.Pratibha M.Singh for
                                             the defendant nos. 4 & 5.
                                             Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Sr.Adv.
                                             with Ms. Jasmine and Mr.
                                             Saurabh Seth, Advs. for
                                             the defendant no.3.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)

IA No.894/2000

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC filed by the

defendant no.1 for release of one Betacam Cassette of the

movie „Ganga Jamuna Saraswati‟ to the

applicant/defendant no.1 herein.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff who

is a Financer functioning in Delhi filed a suit against the

defendant no.1, a proprietary concern carrying on business

as producers of Cinematograph films. The defendant no.1

had purchased a film titled „Ganga Jamuna Saraswati‟

starring Sh.Amitabh Bacchan, Sh.Mithun Chakravorthy,

Smt.Jayaprada, Smt.Meenakshi Seshadri and others,

directed by Sh.Manmonan Desai.

3. The said film which was purchased by the defendant no.1

was allegedly financed by the plaintiff which led to some

dispute as a consequence of which the present suit for

recovery of Rs.1,62,46,215/- has been filed. The plaintiff

had also sought a mandatory injunction against the

defendants directing them to deliver prints of the aforesaid

movie.

4. The suit was filed in the year 1992. On 24.1.2000, the

defendant no.1 filed the said application wherein the

following reliefs have been prayed for: -

"(a) The plaintiff be directed to give an undertaking before this Hon‟ble Court that the plaintiff will not interfere and approach the clients of defendant no.1 as the defendant no.1 is trying his best to sell TV rights of the film „Ganga Jamuna Saraswati" which will bring him finances and enable him to deposit the balance amount in this Hon‟ble Court.

(b) T.V. Rights which is assigned by S.Raamanathan in the name of M/s Nahata and Co. to be reassigned in the name of Mr.S.Raamanathan.

(c) A letter from Nahata Ltd., to M/s Gemini Colour Laboratory, Madras to arrange to prepare Betacam Cassette which is very essential for telecasting.

(d) It is further prayed that the Applicant/Defendant No.1 be granted six weeks time to negotiate once again with M/s Popular Entertainment Network Ltd. /Doordarshan for telecasting TV rights of the film "Ganga Jamuna Saraswati" and in case the negotiations are successful, then applicant/defendant No.1 herein seeks a further period of six weeks time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6.25 lacs in this Hon‟ble Court.

(d) Such other orders which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Applicant/Defendant herein"

5. The very fact that this application has remained pending

for more than ten years shows that the said application has

become infructuous and the relief which the defendant no.1

was praying in the application, no more survives. But on

being asked, Mr.Mehra, the learned counsel for the

defendant no.1 has stated that the application is still

relevant and wanted to argue the same though reluctantly.

It may be pertinent to mention here that prior to this,

yesterday in the list when the matter was reflected, there

were as many as ten applications which were shown to be

pending for the last more than ten years starting from the

present application most of them have been not disposed

of. It is really very unfortunate that despite the suit having

been filed in the year 1992, more than 18 years have

expired but still issues are yet to be framed and the

applications which have been filed by the respective sides

are kept pending on account of indifferent attitude shown

by the learned counsel for counter arguments.

6. The grievance of the learned counsel for the defendant no.1

in the present application is that the defendant with a view

to generate the funds had negotiated an agreement with

one M/s Popular Entertainment Network, a Bombay based

company for purchasing the telecasting rights of the

aforesaid movie so that it could be shown on Doordarshan.

These rights were negotiated by the defendant no.1 for a

sum of Rs.16 lacs and a token amount of Rs.1,00,000/- at

the time of signing the agreement is purported to have been

given by the defendant no.1 by way of a cheque in favour of

Late Sh.H.C.Nahata who is the representative/Director of

the plaintiff company. It is stated that thereafter on

16.5.1998, the said M/s Popular Entertainment Network

Ltd. issued, two cheques for a sum of Rs.4 lacs and Rs.5

lacs in favour of the plaintiff directly but the plaintiff

company informed M/s Popular Entertainment Network

Ltd. that the aforesaid movie was under litigation as a

consequence of which M/s Popular Entertainment Network

Ltd stopped the payment of these two cheques and as a

result the cheques were got dishonoured by the party. It is

also urged that the defendant no.1 had to repay the

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by M/s Popular

Entertainment Network Ltd. to the plaintiff.

7. In the light of the aforesaid background, the defendant no.1

has sought direction that the plaintiff should furnish an

undertaking that it will not indulge in any such activity so

that it stopped or discouraged the defendant no.1 from

entering into an agreement with any party for purchase of

TV rights. It is also prayed that the defendant no.1 is

trying to renegotiate the matter with M/s Popular

Entertainment Network Ltd. and if negotiations are

successful, he is seeking six weeks‟ time to make the

balance payment of Rs.6,25,000/- which will be deposited

in the Court. Apart from this, the defendant no.1 wants a

letter from M/s Nahata Ltd. to M/s Gemini Colour

Laboratory, Madras to prepare a Betacam Cassette so that

the movie could be telecasted on television.

8. The plaintiff has filed reply to the application.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 as

well as the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have also

perused the record. At the outset, I must say that the very

fact that the application has been remained pending for the

last more than ten years, the application itself has become

infructuous, so far as the prayers made in the application

are concerned.

10. In addition to this even if this fact is ignored, the question

which arises for consideration is that in a suit for recovery

which is filed by the plaintiff as a Financer against the

defendant no.1, a proprietor of a film, can it be said that

the order which is sought by the defendant no.1 by way of

an undertaking from the plaintiff not to disturb the

negotiations which the defendant no.1 may have with a

particular party for purchase of TV rights, be said to be

subsidiary or ancillary to the main relief?

11. Certainly, this cannot be said to be a subsidiary or

ancillary relief to the main relief which is being asked in the

plaint namely recovery of money. Therefore, this

application of the defendant no.1 is totally misconceived

and the same is accordingly dismissed.

CS(OS) NO. 3516/1992

List all the pending applications for hearing on 03.6.2010.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 29, 2010 RN