ASN 1 Appeal-851.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APEAL LODGING NO.851 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN SUIT LODGING NO.3404 OF 2011 Nariman Pictures and ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Baba Arts Ltd. And ors. ..Respondents. Advocate Iva Bansal, Digvijay Chopra, Mahesh A. Mahadgut, S.S.Rane and Ankita P. Kanojia for the Appellants. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Ms. Sonal Doshi and Mr. S.Gaikwad i/by Sonal Doshi & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr.Counsel with Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Mr.Amey Nabad and Ms. S.Wagle i/by Hariani &Co. for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. Mr. Birendra Saraf with Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Chaudhary, Mr. Lavin Hirani and Mr. Dhaval Mohan i/by Naik Naik & Company for Respondent No.7. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 22 DECEMBER 2011 PC: This appeal is directed against the order dated 19 December 2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court declining to grant ad interim relief in Notice of Motion taken out by the appellants-plaintiffs in their suit seeking an injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from infringing their copyright in the film DON and for consequential reliefs.. ASN 2 Appeal-851.sxw 2 The learned Single Judge has declined to grant ad interim relief after indicating that under the agreement dated 21 March 2005 entered into between the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, the plaintiff No.1 assigned the perpetual rights in favour of defendant No.1 to make film/films in Hindi language produced, dubbed or para dubbed, subtitled based on the story, screenplay, scenario, dialogue, lyrics, the literary, dramatic, artistic and musical work, treatment of the entire subject, any and all sound recordings included in the sound track of the said film DON starring Amitabh Bachchan etc. directed by Chandra Barot. The learned Single Judge has then also given the following reasons for declining to grant ad interim relief on account of delay on the part of the plaintiffs in moving this Court:- “The application for ad-interim reliefs however must be rejected on account of the fact that the plaintiffs admittedly had knowledge of the making of this film latest by 26.10.2011. The plaintiffs’ case is that they came to know about the film now sought to be restrained on 26.10.2011. Prima-facie, it appears that the plaintiffs must have been aware of the making of this film much before that date. Articles have appeared about the making of the film as far back on 14.6.2007, 3.7.2007, 14..8.2009 and 23.2.2010 on the websites of Hindustan Times, SIFY, Business of Cinema and PRLOG.ORG respectively and in the Times of India on 12.7.2011. It is reasonable to presume that the plaintiffs, who carry on business in the same field, had noticed these reports. Added to this is the fact that by a letter dated 15.3.2008, the advocates of defendant No.2 informed the plaintiffs that they had by an agreement ASN 3 Appeal-851.sxw dated 16.5.2005, acquired the rights of defendant No.1 under the agreement dated 21.3.2005. It was expressly contended that all the rights in respect of the original film DON has been transferred to defendant No.2. Thus, the plaintiffs were put to notice about the claim in respect of their alleged rights almost four years ago. They did nothing in the matter to protect their rights. Had this delay affected the rights of defendant No.1 only, it may have been a different matter. It has however, also irreversibly affected the rights of not merely the other defendants but also of various third parties. The film is due to be screened within less than forty eight hours from now. It is scheduled for release on 21.12.2011, 22.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 in some countries. Even if it is only scheduled for release on 23.12.2011, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it would make no difference. Theaters have been booked and the prints have been distributed to the exhibitors and the owners of the theaters. A grant of an injunction at this stage would cause, grave harm and irreparable injury to the third parties, who are not before the Court. They cannot be prejudiced for the delay on the plaintiffs’ part. On the other hand, the equities can always be adjusted at the hearing of the Notice of Motion if the plaintiffs succeed. For these reasons alone, the ad-interim application is liable to be rejected. In this view of the matter, I did not consider it necessary to permit the counsel to address me on the merits any further. Ad-interim reliefs refused. The defendants shall however maintain accounts and details of all the transactions in respect of the said film”. ASN 4 Appeal-851.sxw 3 We are in complete agreement with the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is therefore, dismissed particularly, having regard to the directions given by the learned Single Judge to the defendants to maintain accounts. CHIEF JUSTICE ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )