1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4039 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3007 OF 2007 Balaji Talefilms Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Prasar Bharti & Anr. ....Defendants Dr.Birendra Saraf i/b IC Legal for the Plaintiff. Ms.Jyotsna N. Pandhi for Defendant No.1. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the invocation of a bank guarantee issued by Defendant No.2 in favour of the Plaintiff at the instance of Defendant No.1. 2. The bank guarantee dated 31.3.2004 is the usual bank guarantee by which Defendant No.2 has undertaken unconditionally and irrevocably to pay to Defendant No.1 without demur any claim upto the maximum of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of non-payment by Defendant No.1 of any of the T.V. advertisement charges within the period allowed to them under any agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 for such payments. 3. I do not find any case or fraud or special equity having been 2 made out entitling the Plaintiff to an injunction restraining the invocation of and payment under such a guarantee. 4. There have been several transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 inter-alia for placing advertisements and utilizing the air time for telecasting the Plaintiff’s programmes. Various charges were payable by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 in respect thereof. The reliance upon a letter dated 25.9.2003 to contend that a sum of Rs.26,41,907/- was paid in full and final payment against all outstandings of the Plaintiff towards Defendant No.1 is not well founded. The letter is with reference to a letter earlier addressed by Defendant No.1. The date of this letter is not mentioned. The counsel are agreed that the reference is to a letter dated 18.8.2003 addressed by Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff. The letter demanded the said sum of Rs.26,41,907/-. However, the amounts mentioned in this letter were stipulated therein to be as per the details of the amounts payable by the Plaintiff “against various programmes as enclosed with the letter”. The enclosure refers to only three programmes and “promos” i.e. the advertisements also in respect only of the programmes mentioned therein. In other words, the amounts claimed by the letter dated 18.8.2003 were not in respect of the entire accounts between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in respect of their dealings but only in respect of those programmes mentioned in the enclosure thereto. 5. The letter dated 25.9.2003 thus must be read with the letter dated 18.8.2003. So read, it is clear that the full and final satisfaction is, at the highest, limited to the outstandings in respect of the programmes referred to in the letter dated 18.8.2003. 3 6. The reliance upon the correspondence undertaking payment of all the dues under two other programmes is of no assistance to the Plaintiff either as admittedly there were transactions other than those as well between the parties. 7. In the circumstances, the entitlement of Defendant No.1 to the amounts can be adjudicated upon finally only after the evidence either in this suit or in any other appropriate proceedings. Till then, it is difficult in these circumstances to grant an injunction restraining payment under an unconditional bank guarantee. 8. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. Ad- interim order shall continue upto and including 31.1.2010.