1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.919 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.659 OF 2007 Maganlal Savani & Anr. ....Plaintiffs V/s. M/s.Ralhan Productions & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.A.S. Daver i/b Mr.K.R.Shekhawat for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Naushad Engineer i/b RMG Law Associates for Defendant No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed to enforce the rights under an alleged agreement dated 19.12.1972 by which Defendant No.1 is alleged to have assigned the copyrights in respect of the motion picture to and in favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of certain territories. 2. No ad-interim application has been made in the matter. 3. It is difficult to accept at this stage the genuineness of the agreement. Firstly, the movie itself was made in the year 1983. There is no explanation as to how the agreement was executed eleven years earlier. The consideration allegedly paid by the Plaintiffs is Rs.4,30,000/-. There is no proof of payment. 4. Defendant No.1 has been dealing with the said movie 2 throughout. For instance on 1.2.1995, Defendant No.1 granted copyrights in respect of the said picture to star T.V. This suit is filed thirty five years after the alleged agreement. 5. Suit No.3748 of 2000 was filed by one Smt.Rupali Shah against her brother and mother. The producer of the said movie was one O.P. Ralhan, who was the father of the Plaintiff in that suit. The deceased was the sole proprietor of Defendant No.1. Whether Defendant No.1 could have been impleaded as such is another matter. 6. In the said suit, Notice of Motion No.2700 of 2000 was taken out. By an order dated 23.3.2001, the Plaintiff therein was permitted to assign the rights in respect inter-alia of the said picture subject to the Defendants being given an opportunity of obtaining a better offer. Plaintiff No.1 therein was directed to furnish to the Defendants therein full accounts of such transactions and the amounts received therefrom were directed to be paid to the Income Tax Department after certain deductions. The order has been upheld in appeal by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the said order, the notices were published in four trade magazines on 15.11.2003 inviting objections to the assignment of the copyright to one M/s.Shemaroo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiffs herein by a letter dated 18.11.2003 raised an objection. Defendant No.1 by their letter dated 23.11.2003 sought proof of the assignment of the alleged copyright in the present suit. The same was not furnished. 7. Ultimately by an agreement dated 2.2.2007, the Plaintiff in the said suit No.3748 of 2000 pursuant to the above order assigned their rights in respect of the said film. What is important to note is that the Plaintiffs 3 have also assigned all their alleged rights to M/s.Shemaroo Video Pvt. Ltd. by a writing dated 2.2.2007. 8. In these circumstances, no interim orders are warranted. Further the rights, if any, of the Plaintiffs are adequately safeguarded by the fact that Plaintiff No.1 in Suit No.3748 of 2000 has been directed to maintain accounts of any transactions pursuant to the said order dated 23.3.2001. 9. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of.