1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4419 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3243 OF 2008 Yasmin Lalani ...Plaintiff vs. M/s.Vimal Production & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.J.P. Singh for the Plaintiff. Mr.L.H. Patil for Defendant No.1. Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. M/s.Law Global for Defendant Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 20, 2009 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the plaintiff and Counsel for the Defendant. 2 The plaintiff has filed the suit as a proprietor of M/s. Golden Plaza and M/s. Video Plaza 2 Distributors against the defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for all rights i.e. Commercial, Non-commercial, Non- theatrical, Duping, Video Copyrights, Video Cassettes, Disc, CCTV (Cable TV), High Seas, Satellite, T.V. Rights, Broadcasting, Airborne rights of the film SARECH SAJJAN . 3 It is submitted by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 had executed an agreement dated 10.6.94 and full and final payment was made at the time of the execution of the said agreement and all rights were mentioned in the said agreement. It is further submitted public notice was also given on 1.5.2007 stating therein that the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the rights in respect of the said film were specifically given to the plaintiff herein. This agreement was registered in 2007 at Thane. The suit has been filed in the year 2008. In the affidavit in reply, the plaintiff has taken out the 3 notice of motion seeking interim relief restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights and from using and exploiting the rights of the film. In the affidavit in reply, defendant no.1 has stated that only the video rights were given in respect of the said film. 4 Shri Patil, Counsel for defendant no.1 invited my attention to the said agreement and pointed out that before signing the said agreement, it was specifically stated therein as under :- We have no concern with film exhibition. 5 He further submitted that even the receipt which was given by the defendant no.1 specifically stated that they had received a full and final payment against video copy rights of the film. He further submitted that the plaintiff had not 4 executed the said agreement. He further submitted that the name of the plaintiff is not mentioned in the said agreement as it only refers to M/s.Video Plaza Distributors and there is no material on record that the plaintiff is proprietor of Video Plaza Distributors. 6 In this case, no interim relief was granted since the motion was to be heard finally. In my view, there is no case made out for the plaintiff for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the suit. Agreement, in question, was executed in 1994. Suit is filed in 2008. The agreement also was not registered and the agreement was registered in 2007. There is no material to indicate that the plaintiff is the person who had executed an agreement with defendant no.1. The receipt which is given also indicates that only video copy rights were given to Video Plaza Distributors. Taking into consideration all these facts, in my view, therefore, no prima facie case is made out for grant 5 of any interim relief in favour of the plaintiff. 7 Motion, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)