1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2108 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1875 OF 2006 M/s.Time Media & Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. & another Plaintiffs versus M/s.Vibhuti Vision and others Defendants Ms.Jyoti Ghag i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for plaintiffs. None for defendants. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 30th November 2010 PC : 1. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs inter alia for a perpetual injunction against the defendants from making and/or manufacturing videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes, VCDs. DVDs etc. or any other video format copies of the suit film "Apne Dam Par" throughout the contracted territories. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have no right of whatsoever nature to manufacture videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes, VCDs, DVDs etc. or any other video format copies of the suit film "Apne Dam Par" and it is the plaintiffs who have the exclusive rights to do so. 2. The plaintiffs after filing the above suit on 27th June 2006 made an application before this Court for urgent ad-interim reliefs on 28th July 2006 on the ground that the defendant nos.2 and 3 are now attempting to manufacture and/or market the videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes, VCDs, DVDs etc. of the suit film thereby infringing the copyright assigned to the plaintiffs. This Court on the basis of the representations made by the plaintiffs granted ad-interim relief against defendant no.2 in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion which reads as under :- 2 "(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents and otherwise howsoever be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from, i. making and/or manufacturing videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes VCDs, DVDs. etc. or any other video format copies of the suit film "Apne Dam Par" throughout the contracted territories; ii. distributing and/or selling and/or marketing videograms, cassettes, discs, tapes, VCDs, DVDs, etc. of the suit film "Apne Dam Par" throughout the contracted territories; iii. exhibiting and/or broadcasting, exploiting and/or communicating to the public by use of video format of the suit film "Apne Dam Par" by means of cable; iv. dealing with, disposing of and/or entering into any Agreements with any person or persons in respect of rights in respect of the suit films which are in breach of the rights of the Plaintiffs herein and/or in any manner committing breach of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Agreement, being Exhibit-A hereto in respect of the suit films." 3. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated as follows :- "8. The Plaintiff says that recently the Plaintiff has come across Video Cassettes/VCDs of the said feature film being marketed and/or manufactured by Defendant No.2 and 3 herein. Xerox copy of the box containing the Video Cassettes/VCDs available and sold in the market is annexed hereto and marked EXHIBIT-C. . However, Exhibit-C is the photostat copy of the box containing the VCD manufactured by the plaintiffs themselves and not by the defendant nos.2 and 3, as alleged in the plaint. Even today the box containing the video CDs/VCDs of defendant nos.2 and 3 have not been produced before the Court. Yesterday i.e. on 29th November 2010 when the matter was called out this Court enquired from the learned advocate for the plaintiffs as to whether the ad-interim order dated 20th July 2006 obtained 3 from this Court was served on the defendant no.2. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs informed this Court that she is not sure whether the said order was served. In view thereof, the plaintiffs were granted time till today to enquire whether the advocates for the plaintiffs have taken care to serve the order dated 28th July 2006 obtained from this Court against the defendant no.2 when the defendant no.2 was not present. Today, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs states that the said ad-interim order dated 28th July 2006 is not served on the defendant no.2 till date. 4. As set out hereinabove, though the plaintiffs' case is based on the ground that the defendant no.2 is manufacturing the video cassettes etc. and the copy of the cover of the infringed cassette is annexed as Exhibit- C to plaint, no such cover is annexed to the plaint and in fact the cover of the plaintiffs video cassette is annexed as Exhibit-C to the plaint. Even if the same is a mistake it has not been corrected for the last four years. Even though this matter is taken up for hearing since last two days, the plaintiffs are not able to produce the infringed cassette or its cover allegedly manufactured by defendant nos.2 and/or 3. In fact, as submitted by the Advocate for the plaintiffs, though an ad-interim order was obtained from this Court on 28th July 2006, the plaintiffs have not cared to serve the same on the defendant no.2 till date. In view thereof the case advanced by the plaintiffs completely lacks bona fides. In view thereof, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)