The court emphasized the importance of compliance with settlement deeds, the interpretation of contract clauses, and the principles for granting interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act 1963.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. In connection with a suit for injunction and other reliefs filed by the appellants, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted an order of interim injunction, delivered on 9th March, 2020 which was challenged in appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeals have been allowed and the order of interim injunction granted by the Single Judge has been reversed by the Appellate Bench. Questioning the legality of the said order of the Division Bench, these appeals by way of special leave petitions have been filed. As these appeals have been filed against an interim order, we are giving only skeleton facts relevant for the purpose of present appeals.

3. On 09.09.2015, two agreements were entered into between the appellant namely, Narendra Hirawat and Company (for short 'NHC') and respondent no.1, namely Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'SME') for the rights of films Sholay and Sholay 3D for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 for an amount of Rs.20 crores. The second agreement of the same date was executed for the rights of the same films Sholay and Sholay 3D for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2027 for an amount of Rs.5 crores. This was in regard to the first set of appeals (hereinafter referred to as Sholay appeal). In the second set of appeals, similar agreements were executed on the same date between the NHC and respondent no.1 therein i.e., Generation Three Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'G3'). These were with regard to the rights of the 32 films given in favour of NHC for a similar length of period. The facts in both these sets of appeals, though may not be identical but are very similar. For convenience we shall deal with the facts of the first set of appeals, which we shall henceforth refer to as Sholay appeal.

4. After the aforesaid agreements were executed, on 12.07.2016 two addenda were executed in the license agreements dated 09.09.2015. These addenda stipulated that on an additional amount of Rs.1.75 crores to be paid by NHC, the NHC would have the rights for unlimited runs of the film and the period was also extended from 31.03.2027 to 30.09.2027. There were certain disputes with regard to the mechanism arrived at in relation to payments of amounts and burden of tax, which got amicably settled between the appellant-NHC and respondent no.1 -SME. In between on 16.05.2018, a sub-license agreement was executed between the appellant - NHC and the respondent no.2 namely, Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. for rights of the said film in favour of the respondent no.2, which was for the period of 15.11.2021 to 14.11.2026.

5. As already mentioned, since there were certain disputes between NHC and respondent no.1 - SME, there were dialogues between the parties and ultimately a memorandum of settlement was arrived at between the two parties on 05.11.2018. Finally, on 03.12.2018, a Deed of Settlement was executed between the NHC and the SME - respondent no.1 in which the main stipulation was that NHC was to pay a further sum of Rs.8.71 crores in four tranches of Rs.1.25 crores, Rs.2.46 crores, Rs.2.50 crores and Rs.2.50 crores and instead of the period which earlier was till 30.09.2027, the same was extended by further one year, up to 30.09.2028.

6. Ultimately, the final dispute which has now culminated in these proceedings is allegedly for non-compliance of the final Deed of Settlement dated 03.12.2018, as according to the respondent no.1 the payments have not been made in terms of Deed of Settlement. Stand of NHC, however, is that substantial payments have already been made, and what has not been paid was because of certain non- compliances on the part of the respondent no.1. It is stated that NHC has always been ready and willing to make the payment. However, on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 03.12.2018, a termination notice was issued by the respondent no.1 on 18.06.