Dismissed

Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. Glamour Films and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2011S/3658/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an original suit for copyright declaration and injunction. It held that the core issues regarding copyright and agreement validity were academic as the prior rights term had expired. The plaintiff was directed to raise these matters in a pending suit No.1632 of 2003.

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed without granting reliefs; plaintiff directed to raise issues in pending suit No.1632 of 2003.

Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Glamour Films and Ors. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2011)

s3658-02

vai

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

¶5

SUIT NO.3658 OF 2002

¶6

M/s.Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. V/s.

¶7

....Plaintiff

¶8

M/s.Glamour Films & Ors. ....Defendants

¶9

Mr.Rajiv Singh with Mr.Suryanarayan Panda for the Plaintiff.

¶10

Mr.Akshaya Patil i/b Mr.R.M. Azim for Defendant Nos. 3 and 4.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 22ND AUGUST, 2011.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is the exclusive copyright holder in respect of the said film till 20.4.2003 and that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have no right of whatsoever nature therein. The plaintiff has also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner exploiting the said film.

¶14

The plaintiff’s case is that by an agreement dated 21.3.1990, defendant No.1, the producer, assigned his rights in respect of the said film to defendant No.2. The agreement was to remain valid for a period of eleven years after the delivery of the film to defendant No.2. The film was delivered on 20.4.1992. The agreement therefore, remained valid till 20.4.2003.

¶15

¶16

s3658-02

¶17

Defendant No.1 sought to terminate the said agreement. Defendant No.2 challenged the termination by filing Suit No.9513 of 1991 in the Bombay City Civil Court. The suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms by an order dated 20.2.1992. In effect, the parties confirmed the validity and existence of the said agreement dated 21.3.1990.

¶18

By an agreement dated 11.4.1994, defendant No.2 in turn transferred his rights in the said film to the plaintiff. The advocates of defendant No.4 by a notice dated 31.10.2002 addressed to the plaintiff alleged that they had acquired the rights in respect of the said film pursuant to an agreement dated 29.9.2001 entered into by them with defendant No.1. It is in these circumstances, that the present suit was filed.

¶19

The question as to the plaintiff’s rights in respect of the said agreement dated 11.4.1994 and the effect of the alleged agreement dated 29.9.2001 entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 is now academic in view of the fact that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 dated 11.4.1994 has come to an end by efflux of time. During the pendency of this suit, an interim injunction was passed in the plaintiff’s favour. The plaintiff’s grievance in the suit therefore, stands redressed. As a result of the interim order, the plaintiff has enjoyed the benefit of the agreement entered into by it with defendant No.2.

¶20

¶21

s3658-02

¶22

The plaintiff however, states that it has also filed suit No. 1632 of 2003 in this Court inter-alia claiming damages against defendant Nos.3 and 4 for having allegedly wrongly prevented the plaintiff from enjoying its rights under the agreement dated 11.4.1994 to the full extent. Defendant No.3 is the distributor of the film appointed by defendant No.4.

¶23

It is rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos.3 and 4 that this Court ought not to consider this suit including the question as to the validity of the agreement dated 11.4.1994 and the validity/effect of the agreement dated 29.9.2001, as for the purpose of this suit all the issues including these issues are now merely academic. He has rightly stated that these questions will in any event arise in the said suit No.1632 of 2003 and the plaintiff can always and must urge these aspects in that suit. I agree.

¶24

In the circumstances, this suit is disposed of without granting the reliefs claimed herein as the same have already been worked out for the reasons stated above. The plaintiff will be at liberty with the consent of the defendants and pursuant to this order to raise all the issues which arise in this suit in suit No.1632 of 2003.

¶25

The defendants however, shall pay the costs of this suit to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.

Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. Glamour Films and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. Glamour Films and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raymond Limited Vs Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd.

Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. and Anr. Vs v.L.Pharma

Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Vs the Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd. and Ors. and the Indian Express Ltd.

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Dr Archana Gupta and Dr Navinkumar Gupta

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Firoz M Shaikh and Vajir Malang Sheikh

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Rajendra Bhai M. Vala and Anr.