2001 (9) TMI 1161 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper party status of Defendant No. 5.
2. Scope of plaintiff's rights in the film 'Majboor' (theatrical vs. telecasting rights).
3. Assignment of telecasting and satellite rights by Defendant No. 2.
4. Maintainability of the plaintiff's suit.
5. Entitlement of the plaintiff to claim damages for telecasting.
6. Entitlement of the plaintiff to claim injunction.
7. Maintainability of the plaintiff's suit concerning the description of India Impexico.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Proper Party Status of Defendant No. 5
This issue was not pressed and deemed unnecessary to address in light of the conclusions on other issues.

Issue 2: Scope of Plaintiff's Rights in 'Majboor'
The key question was whether the plaintiff's rights included telecasting rights or were confined to theatrical rights. The agreement dated 20th March 1987, between M/s India Impexico and M/s A A Associates, granted the plaintiff exclusive distribution, exhibition, and exploitation rights of the film 'Majboor' for Delhi and Uttar Pradesh until 9th July 2007. The plaintiff argued that these rights included telecasting rights, supported by circulars from the Motion Picture Association. However, the court found that the agreement's geographical limitation implied the rights were confined to theatrical rights, as telecasting on Doordarshan would extend beyond Delhi and UP.

Issue 3: Assignment of Telecasting and Satellite Rights
The court examined whether Defendant No. 2 could assign telecasting and satellite rights during the subsistence of the plaintiff's rights. The court held that the intention of the parties, inferred from the agreement's geographical limitation, indicated that the rights were confined to theatrical rights. The court referenced decisions from the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court, which distinguished between different types of rights (theatrical, terrestrial, satellite, cable TV) and concluded that telecasting rights were independent and not included in the plaintiff's rights.

Issue 4: Maintainability of the Plaintiff's Suit
The defendants contested the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the plaintiff had no privity of contract with Defendant No. 2 and that the rights granted were theatrical only. The court agreed with the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's rights were confined to theatrical rights within Delhi and UP, and telecasting rights were not included.

Issue 5: Entitlement to Claim Damages
The plaintiff sought damages for the telecasting of 'Majboor' on various channels. The court found that the plaintiff had no right to claim compensation as the telecasting rights were not included in the agreement. The earlier compromise, where Rs. 90,000 was paid to the plaintiff, did not establish a precedent for claiming telecasting rights, as it was a settlement without adjudication of rights.

Issue 6: Entitlement to Claim Injunction
The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from telecasting the film. The court denied this relief, reiterating that the plaintiff's rights were confined to theatrical rights and did not include telecasting rights.

Issue 7: Maintainability Regarding India Impexico's Description
This issue was not pressed and deemed unnecessary to address in light of the conclusions on other issues.

Relief:
The suit was dismissed as it lacked merit. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.