: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2008 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO.2275 OF 1995 Nilanjana Bhattacharya .. Plaintiff V/s. Monabina Roy & Ors. .. Defendants ..... Ms. Soma Singh i/by Prakash Mahadik for the plaintiff Ms. Armin Wandrewala a/w Raksha Tanna and Pankaj Kawli i/by M/s. Hoosenally Visram for the defendants ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. This is a Notice of Motion wherein the plaintiff has sought an order and direction to the defendants to forthwith give her share in the royalty, consideration, sum and / or any other monies received as a result of any transaction in respect of all or any rights in the films of late Bimal Roy. 2. There is further relief sought with regard to disclosure of all agreements regarding the said films and an injunction against creation of any rights therein : 2 : save and except without the express and written consent of the plaintiff. 3. Prayer clause (d) of the Notice of Motion is for an order and direction to the defendants to hand over negatives of the films Devdas and Madhumati and / or cause prints to be made available in sufficient quantities for their theatrical release in India and throughout the world. 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a daughter of the late Bimal Roy. She wants the Estate of late Bimal Roy be administered by and under the orders and directions of this Court. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 are the children of the 1st defendant, who is the widow of late Bimal Roy and brothers and sisters of the plaintiff. This Notice of Motion was argued on the earlier occasion and the request of adjournment was to seek instructions from one M/s. Sunville Laboratory at Worli, Mumbai with regard to the present condition of the Feature Films that have been deposited and lying with the said laboratory. 5. A mere letter from the said laboratory was produced and being not satisfied with the same, a further order was passed on 28th August, 2009. Thereafter, an : 3 : affidavit has been filed on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4 wherein it is stated that the films enlisted in paras 1,2 and 3 of the said affidavits are lying respectively with M/s.Bombay Film Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and Sunville Laboratory Ltd. It is stated that in or around 9th March, 2009, M/s. Bombay Films Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. handed over to 2nd defendant the films mentioned in para 1 of the affidavit affirmed on 8th September, 2009 with some picture negatives, some sound negatives and some trailer negatives in 117 cans. Even these materials are now stated to be stored with M/s. Sunville. Further, it is pointed out in para 6 that M/s. Bombay Films Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. on their own have forwarded the negatives of Benazir and Devdas to National Film Archives of India, Pune (NFAI) for storage. Copies of the letter from defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 in respect thereof are enclosed. 6. On the last occasion, the plaintiff s Counsel sought time to take instructions and file rejoinder affidavit. Accordingly, the affidavit has been filed. 7. The affidavits clearly disclose that the properties left behind are the films and some material. It is stated by both sides that they would have no objection if the films, which are mentioned in para 1 of the : 4 : affidavit in rejoinder of the plaintiff dated 29th September, 2009 are handed over to the NFAI for storage and for such other and further steps as are required to ensure that they remain in proper condition and could be exhibited and shown whenever necessary. 8. The 2nd defendant has filed on affidavit in which a statment is made that M/s. Bombay Film Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. on their own has forwarded the two Films Negatives to NFAI for storage. The 2nd defendant has enclosed a copy of the letter addressed to Bombay Film Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and it is then stated that the 2nd defendant has not examined the condition of these negatives and is not aware whether any one of them are damaged. In para 8 of the affidavit this is what is stated by the 2nd defendant :- 8. I say that to examine the status of the aforesaid films and to take remedial measures if any found damaged would be very expensive. I have no objection to contribute my share of costs provided all heirs of Late Bimal Roy do like wise. 9. The plaintiff has filed the rejoinder affidavit and has stated that she has been corresponding with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India requesting the Ministry to help to restore the legacy of late Bimal Roy. There are letters written on the subject of the Films made by late Bimal Roy which : 5 : are termed as classics, and require to be preserved. From the tenor of this affidavit and the continued correspondence with the NFAI, it is clear that the plaintiff has no objection to the films being handed over the said NFAI. On the last occasion, I had indicated to parties that if this is the only issue pending between both of them, then, it must be properly resolved before the hearing of the suit. In any event, it would be necessary to preserve and protect the films of late Bimal Roy. All the more, when they are termed as classics and are extremely popular even today. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of all parties if these films are handed over to the NFAI for storage. It is stated that the said NFAI would require a formal agreement being drawn and duly executed so also signed by parties. 10. An apprehension is expressed that if any agreement is singed duly authorizing the said NFAI to deal with the films / negatives, then, that would prejudice the case of both sides in these proceedings and more particularly the Suit. I do not see as to how merely handing over the films / negatives for preservation and storage to the said NFAI would mean that either of the parites have waived their rights and contentions. Ultimately, the concern of the Court was to preserve : 6 : these films. Since, there were allegations made against each other, that this direction for their storage is passed. It is also in public interest that the NFAI takes the necessary steps. 11. Merely because the films are to be handed over for storage and preservation to the said NFAI so also parties being called upon to sign some documents authorizing the said NFAI to do so, it does not mean that the rights and contentions in the present proceedings are waived. The handing over of the films / negatives to NFAI and their preservation and storage until further orders of this Court is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides in this suit. Hence, it is directed that the Films and related material enlisted in para 1 of the affidavit in rejoinder dated 29th September, 2009 shall be handed over to NFAI for safe custody and preservation until further orders of this Court. Motion is disposed off but with a clarification that for such other and further reliefs as are sought in the present motion, it would be open for the plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceedings. The NFAI shall not part with possession of these films of late Bimal Roy without the written consent of both parties to this suit. The parties to share the costs of such preservation and storage with the NFAI. The prints : 7 : / films and negatives are stated to be kept for preservation and storage with the Sunville Laboratory Ltd. The said Sunville laboratory is directed to hand over these films to the NFAI and both M/s. Sunville and the said NFAI to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 12. The NFAI to take custody of the films within a period of 6 weeks from today. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)