: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.309 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.112 OF 2009 Bipin Patel S/o Bhailal Patel .. Plaintiff V/s. M/s. Reasonable Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants ..... Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the plaintiff Mr. A.Dasgupta i/by M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for defendant No.4. None for other defendants ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Saraogi appearing for the plaintiff. Mr. Saraogi states that at the ad-interim stage, notice was directed to be issued to the defendants. Accordingly, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have been duly served with Court Notice on the earlier occasions. Defendant No.4 was duly represented. Mr. Saraogi on instructions states that today the plaintiff is not claiming any interim reliefs against defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6. Defendant Nos.3 and 5 are duly served. Mr. Saraogi states that the affidavit will be filed within a period of one week from today. : 2 : 2. So far as defendant No.4 is concerned, Mr.Saraogi makes a statement on instructions that the rights of the defendant No.4 are accepted and, therefore, no relief is claimed against them. 3. Mr. Saraogi has invited my attention to the averments of the plaint and contended that the agreement which is annexed to the plaint would indicate that defendant No.5 had been granted rights only to the extent of distribution of the films. He was recognized as a Distributor and nothing else. The plaintiff continue to be the owner / copy right holder and at no stage, assigned the rights in favour of anybody. The limited rights that are granted in favour of defendant No.5 did not enable him to assign the copy right itself. Thus, the defendant No.5 has clearly exceeded the authority that was given in its favour. 4. None of the plaint averments are denied nor are the contents of the annexures to the plaint. Despite service by the plaintiff and through the Court, defendant Nos.3 and 5 have not come forward to oppose the request of the plaintiff to grant interim reliefs in terms of the notice of motion. 5. In these circumstances and when a prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiff so also the balance of : 3 : convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and finding that if the film which is ready for release is not released, there will be irreparable loss and injury, the motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) would operate only against defendant Nos.3 and 5. No order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)