9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he picture Majboor. An agreement in this regard was arrived at on 20th March, 1987. The rights were available to the plaintiff uptil 9th July, 2007. Defendant no.2 (M/s Suchitra Films Pvt. Ltd.) is a film producer of the said film. There was an agreement between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant no.2 assigned the sole and exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said film uptil 9th July, 2007. Defendant no.1 in turn assigned the said rights to the plaintiff and he has been enjoying the said rights. It is the plaintiff, as per the agreement, who alone can deal with the rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation pertaining to the said film. The commercial rights of the feature film has been purchased by the plaintiff and as per the plaintiff it includes all circumstances unless expressly included including telecasting rights on television i.e. Doordarshan, Cable TV, Pay TV and other television channels. 3. Since the television has become popular Therefore it is stated to be a matter of concern in the film trade and the respective associations of the distributors and producers have recognised the said telecasting rights and the Motion Picture Assoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociation is concerned, it has been criticised asserting that the association has adopted a strange and inconceivable interpretation of the words distribution, exhibition and exploitation of rights. It is denied that plaintiff has any right to prevent the defendants from exhibiting the said movie other than on a theatre. 6. Defendant no.3 filed a separate written statement and asserted that the civil suit is not maintainable. Defendant no.3 is neither a proper nor a necessary party. No cause of action has arisen against them. Defendant no.3 asserted that he does not operate any branch office at Delhi within the jurisdiction of this court. Even the claim of the plaintiff in this regard has been controverter. 7. Rejoinders had been filed and the plaintiff re-asserted the assertions. 8. From these pleadings of the parties this court on 8th December, 1997 had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant no.5 is a proper party? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff's rights in picture 'Majboor' includes only theatrical rights and does not include telecasting on satellite rights? OPP 3. Whether during the subsistence of plaintiff rights in picture 'Majboor' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ASIS the distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of the said picture 'MAJBOOR' for the balance period i.e. up to 9th July, 2007 to the BUYERS on certain terms and conditions. AND WHEREAS it is necessary to record the said agreement. NOW IT IS AGREED AND DECLARED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:- 1. That the SELLERS hereby SELL and the BUYERS hereby PURCHASE the exclusive distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of the picture 'MAJBOOR' on OUTRIGHT SALE BASIS for a period commencing immediately and ending on 9th July, 2007 for the territory of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh." 12. Perusal of the same certainly shows that the seller namely India Impexico described itself to be having the sole and exclusive distribution, exhibition and exploitation rights of Majboor and they had agreed to sell on outright sale basis the said rights to the plaintiff up to 9th July, 2007 for the territory of Delhi and UP. 13. In addition to that reliance is being placed on the different circulars that have been issued pertaining to the said rights. One such circular relied upon is of 12th July, 1983 (Ex. P2) on behalf of the Motion Picture Association pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istributorship's council the governing body of the film distributors considered the situation and it was resolved that they will be able to raise a dispute in the association. The producers should compensate the distributor in this regard. Same is the resolution of 5th January, 1994, copy of which is Ex. P5. 16. On the strength of these documents referred to above it was urged that all rights have been assigned. There were no impediments therein. 17. It is common knowledge that with the passage of time the television rights have assumed great importance. Whenever an agreement Therefore has been arrived at the intention of the parties cannot be lost sight of. The intention of the parties will spell as to what exactly was agreed and intended to be performed by the parties. 18. Reference in this connection can well be made to the decision from the Madras High Court in Raj Video Vision vs. M/s Sun TV 1994-2-LW.158. Somewhat a similar question came up for consideration in that court. It was held that intention of the parties have to be determined to find out as to whether it included all other rights or it was confined to features or television or satellite. The Madras High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ex. Pw to P4 so much relied upon by the learned counsel are concerned, obviously decisions therein are advisory in nature. They in any case will not infer or take away a vested right flowing from the right. As held above, once there was geographical limitation and showing of the film on Doordarshan channel will not be confined to it, it must be held Therefore that the said circulars are of little avail to the plaintiff. 22. In fact even the attention of the court had been drawn to the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff, photocopy of the same has been placed on there record. It is not in controversy that in the earlier suit that was filed damages was claimed and a compromised had been arrived at whereby in full and final settlement of the said claim ₹ 90,000/- had been paid. Exhibit P8 is the copy of the application under Order 23 Rule 1 as was filed by the parties therein. It was between the parties to the present suit. It was clearly mentioned that the parties have settled their claim on payment of ₹ 90,000/- as such. The statement of Prem Nath Manchanda, Director of defendant no.2 had been recorded and it reads:- "The compromise Ex. C-1 has been entered by m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
