Allowed

Daga Entp. v. K.D.S.Films and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2006S/233/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.C. Suit 233 of 1988, the Court held the Plaintiffs' claim proved regarding a film distribution contract breach. The suit was decreed against the First and Second Defendants for Rs.1,50,629.50 as prayed, while dismissing the claim against the Third Defendant.

What did the court decide?

Decreed for Plaintiffs against First and Second Defendants for Rs.1,50,629.50 as prayed; dismissed against Third Defendant.

Daga Entp. Vs K.D.S.Films and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

[[1]]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶3

S.C.SUIT NO.233 OF 1988.

DAGA ENTERPRISES.

PLAINTIFFS.

VS.

K.D.S.FILMS AND ORS.

DEFENDANTS.

J.P. Singh with R.K. Midha for the Plaintiffs.

¶10

CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. DATED: 01.09.2006.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1]	The	Plaint	iffs are	engaged in the
business	of		distrib	uting,	exhibiting		and
exploitation		of		cinematograph	films,	in	the
Eastern	Circu	it	as	it is kno	wn in	the	trade

¶13

The first defendant had produced a feature

¶14

film entitled "Bad Aur Badnam".

¶15

2]	The	Second	Defendant	is a Managing
partner	of	the	First	Defendant.		The	Third
Defendant	h	as ac	ted as	a Bailee	of	the	First
Defendant.		By	an	Agreement dat	ed	30th	July,
1984	superse	ded	by	a Letter	of		Arrangement

¶16

[[2]]

¶17

dated	9th November, 1987 the	Plaintiffs
acquired	the rights for dis	tribution,
exhibition	and exploitation in respect of	the
aforesaid	film in the territory of Assam	on a
royalty	of Rupees One Lakh. By the	aforesaid
Letter	of Arrangement dated 9th November,	1987
the	first defendant confirmed that	the
Plaintiff	shall be entitled to get delivery	of
the	release prints of the said film on	paying
a	balance of Rs.85,000/- to the	first
Defendant.	The Plaintiff agreed to	pay
Rs.3,000/-	as contribution towards	central
publicity	out of the publicity fund s	anctioned
by	the first Defendant to the	Plaintiffs
towards	pre-release and release	publicity.
The	Plaintiffs fixed the release of	the
feature	film from 27th November, 1987	in
consultatio	n with the First Defendant	and
purchased	the raw stock for taking out	two
release	prints of the film. The raw stock	was
purchased	by the Plaintiffs on	10th
November,	1987 under an Invoice bearing	No.556
from	M/s.Raman Cine Corporation for a sum	of
Rs.65,729,5	0. The aforesaid raw stock	was
delivered	to the third Defendant acting	as

¶18

[[3]]

¶19

Bailees	and Agents of the Fir	st Defendant on
11th	November,1987. An endor	sement of receipt
was	made by the third	Defendant. The
Plaintiffs	have averred that at	the time of
handing	over the raw stock, they	had made it
clear	to the Third Defen	dant that the
Plaintiffs	shall pay the	laboratory processing
and	printing charges of the said	two prints to
the	First Defendant alongwith	the balance
amount	due and payable as pe	r the subsequent
Letter	of Arrangement dated	9th November,1987.
On	16th November,1987 the	third Defendant
declined	to make delivery of	prints to the
representa	tive of the Plaintiffs.	This was
recorded	by the Plaintiffs in	an Advocate’s
Communi	cation dated 17th	November, 1987
addressed	to the First Defendan	t. According
to	the Plaintiffs, the film	could not be
released	as scheduled on 27th	November, 1987
which	resulted in loss and	damages. The
Plaintiffs	by their Advocate’s	telegram dated
17th	November, 1987 addressed	to the First
Defendan	t and third Defendant	recorded that
the	said Laboratory had refused	to deliver the
prints	in spite of the	fact that the

¶20

[[4]]

¶21

Plaintiffs had deposited the raw stock and were prepared to pay the printing of processing charges and the balance amount payable against the delivery of such prints. By a letter dated 24th November,1987 the First Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs should have paid the difference to the Third Defendant for preparing the prints but none the less agreed to give instructions to the third defendant. The Plaintiffs have averred that at Gauhati and Dimapur an amount of Rs.10,000/-was spent towards pre-release publicity. As a result of the breach of

¶22

contract by the first and second Defendant the

¶23

Plaintiffs aver that they were compelled to

¶24

purchase other films from third party.

¶25

distributors on a deposit of Rs.10,000/-.

¶26

4]	Accordingly the Plaintiffs, seek a
declaration	that the Agreement dated	13th
July, 198	4 as modified by the letter of	Credit
dated	9th November, 1987 stands	validly
cancelled	and/or terminated and for a	decree
and or	der directing the First and	Second
Defendants	to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-	which

¶27

[[5]]

¶28

was paid by the Plaintiffs under the letter of Arrangement dated 9th November, 1987. The Plaintiffs also seek damages which are quantified at Rs.70,000/and reimbursement of

¶29

the value of raw stock in the amount of Rs.65,629.50.

¶30

5] The Defendants have been served with the Suit Summons and an affidavit of service is

¶31

filed. No Written Statement has been filed by the Defendants.

¶32

6]	By	an order dated 24t	h June, 2	006 thi	s
Court	direc	ted that	the	Suit	shall	proceed
against		the Defenda	nts	without	their	Written
Statement.		However,	the		Court did	not
consider	it	appropriate	to	pass	a decree	Under
Order	VIII	Rule 10	of	the	Code of	Civil
Procedure,1	908	and	the		Plaintiffs	were
directed	to	adduce	evi	dence	in support	of
their	case.	Accordi	ngly	an	Affidavit	of
evidence		in lieu	of	exami	nation-in-chief	has
been	tende	red and	taken		on record.	A
Compilation		of the		docum	ents upon	which

¶33

reliance is placed, has been tendered and

¶34

[[6]]

¶35

taken on record.

¶36

7]	The	Claim	of the Plai	ntiffs	stands
proved.		The	Suit	stan	ds decr	eed	as	against
the	First a	nd	Second	Defe	ndants	for	the	amount
of	Rupees	1	,50,629.50	as	prayed.		The	Suit
shall	stand		dismissed	as	against		the	third

¶37

Defendant since no relief has been claimed

¶38

against him at the hearing

¶39

8] The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to the

¶40

Costs of the Suit from the First and Second

¶41

Defendants.

¶42

[ DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J]

Daga Entp. v. K.D.S.Films and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daga Entp. v. K.D.S.Films and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shah Nabar Asso. Vs Ganapati Krishnan

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S. Prabhat Builk Carriers Pvt. Ltd.

Universal Petro Chemicalsltd. Vs Prabu Das Virchand Lotia and Ors.

New India Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shree Padma Wire Productspvt Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Galaxy Enterprises Vs Mrs. Shrerroo Framroze Darukhanawala and 3 Ors.

M/S. R. Nawroji and Co. Vs Francis E. Lobo and Anr.