1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2100 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.1902 OF 2005 1.Shemaroo Video Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants vs. 1.Movie Tee Vee Enterprises & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.Anil Menon, for Appellants. Mr.J.P.Sen with Ms.Kavita Shah i/b. Mr.A.G.Shah, for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 26th March,2009. 2 P.C.:- 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion no.2100 of 2005 in Suit no.1902 of 2005. The suit was filed by the present appellant claiming reliefs in terms of prayer clause of (a) to (e). The principal complaint of the plaintiffs was that because of assignment of rights of two Hindi Movies viz. Hero and Karz, the plaintiff no.1 is taking out DVDs and VCDs of the movies and selling them for private distribution, but because of an agreement entered into between plaintiff no.2 who is a producer of the movies and defendant no.1 in the year 1983, the defendants are obstructing the plaintiffs from doing that and the defendant no.1 is claiming rights to take out VCDs and DVDs of the movies and sell them for private distribution. Notice of motion was taken out claiming temporary injunction in the same terms in which permanent injunction is claimed in the suit. The learned 3 Single Judge decided that Notice of motion by his order dated 6.10.2005. The learned Single Judge held that the plaintiffs have not been able to make out a prima facie case and therefore, they are not entitled to any interim reliefs as they have prayed for. This appeal is against that order. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties at length. The relevant clause which falls for consideration for deciding this appeal is Clause 1. That clause has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in his order. It is an admitted position that by Agreement of the year 1983, the plaintiff no.2 had assigned to defendant no.1 exclusive rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the Video rights as also T.V. rights. Now when video rights are assigned that will definitely include rights for taking out Video cassettes and sell it. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that in the year 1987, the plaintiff no.2 had entered into an agreement with Indus Mercantile Agencies assigning to them rights to take out Video cassettes of the two movies and that the said Indus Mercantile Agencies 4 exploited that rights and the defendant no.1 did not object. In the reply filed by the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 stated that the agreement of year 1987 was entered into by plaintiff no.2 in violation of 1983 Agreement entered into by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant no.1 and that defendant no.2 was not aware of that agreement and its alleged exploitation by the other party viz. Indus Mercantile Agencies. There is no rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs denying this position that 1987 Agreement was in breach of 1983 Agreement. The plaintiffs have also not produced any evidence to show that Indus Mercantile Agencies had actually sold number of video cassettes of those movies in the market so that knowledge of that exploitation could be attributed to the defendant no.1. Therefore, the position that emerges on record is that the plaintiffs have not produced on record any material to show that after entering into 1983 Agreement with the defendant no.1, plaintiff no.2 either himself or through somebody else was exploiting the rights to take out Video cassettes of two movies and sell them. It is obvious that VCD and DVD is further improvement in the 5 technology of video cassette. In our opinion, therefore, when video rights of two movies were assigned to defendant no.1 they have right to exploit any improved version of video rights. 3. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, apart from the reasons that have been given by the learned Single Judge, we find that for this reason also it can be said that the plaintiffs have not been able to make out a prima facie case, and therefore no interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is called for. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---