Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.S. Kotwal, J.
Art. Commercial Advertising Pvt. Ltd.... Petitioner.
Versus
Vicco Laboratories others... Respondents.
Civil Revision Application No. 589 of 1989, decided on 18-8-1989.
Advocates appeared :
K.H. Bhabha with M.M. Sakhardande and Saeed Akhtar, for petitioners.
T.R. Andhyarujina with Raj Nangrani, for respondents.
Sections 6 (iv) (j) and 6 (iv) (b)-Pecuniary jurisdiction of Court-Valuation of suit- Plaintiff suit for declaration alleging possession of entire T. V. Serial in a particular programme - Threatening that title of T.V. Serial may be utilised in new advertisement- Relief of injunction also sought- Held, suit covers under Section 6 (iv) (j) and not under Section 6 (iv) (b)-National value of Rs. 300 justified.
It is well recognized and settled that for the purpose of determination of this crucial aspect, it is the recital in the plaint that would be foremost consideration of construction where the defence and other aspect would pale in the background consequently, therefore, it would be necessary in the context of this background to examine the frame of the suit though in that respect also a detailed discussion is not necessary as in my opinion, even a few recitals prominent amongst those in cause of action and the reliefs sought for, are enough to resolve the controversy. It may be incidentally observed that whole tenor of the plaint is to be taken into account without concentrating on any stray recitals therein and consequently, it is the foundation or pivot of any plaint that should be examined in the search to find out the real nature of the suit and relief claimed and once that clue is discovered then incidential reference to other aspect in the plaint would become inconsequential.
The declaration and the subject mater is obviously not susceptible to any monetary evaluation and any reference the cost of these episodes has got to be read in proper context and to say that it gives clues about monetary evaluation as plaintiffs can claim those amount is really begging the issue and putting the same on an entirely wrong track. As stated, the declaration governs even the future episodes which may be produced in respect of which also the plaintiffs are very much entitled to retain their rights over the serial itself, over the title as also the format and maintain that they are the owners and producers not only of the episodes which are already produced but would continue to be so in respect of the episodes that may be produced in future. That line of attack asking for declaration is quite consistent and admits of no other inference. As stated, the real answer about the applicability of the relevant provisions of Court Fees Act must be found on the recitals of the plaint and reading of the recitals of the plaint must contain an exercise to find out the real nature of the claim and not to he influenced or unduly guided by stray reference to other aspects or features which sometimes ostensibly may appear to be relevant but in reality those are not.
On the analysis of this entire material in the field of fact and law Court his not the slightest reservation to endorse the finding recorded by the trial Judge that the suit .squarely falls under Section 6 (iv) (j) where as the provisions of Section 6 (iv) (b) and Article 7 of Schedule I have no application. Consequently, therefore, it is rightly held that the City Civil Court is competent enough and has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. In view of nature of the controversy generated and comparatively deeper arguments having been canvassed on behalf of both sides, it is deemed necessary and proper to record a speaking order even at this threshold of the admission stage so as to understand the thrust of the controversy.
3. The learned trial Judge has answered the preliminary issue and though this conclusion is correct still he has recorded comparatively short order without referring to necessary details including the basic aspect about the recitals of the plaint and nature of the suit and this feature has created a situation requiring this Court to go into the details and in fact the matter was argued by both sides as if at the final hearing stage citing several authorities and therefore instead of admitting and then disposing of the matter, it is examined at this stage itself, which has inevitably resulted in recording a detailed order on par with the one recorded at the final hearing.
4. "Yeh Jo Hai Jindagi" is the title of popular T.V. Serial which was displayed on the National Net work and which projects assorted events in life of a Family, has landed itself in the whirlpool of this litigation so that even the producers and owners thereof have the taste of this reality of life.
5. The plaintiffs who are respondents herein, are a partnership firm in the field of manufacturing Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Products which are sold under the brand name of "Vicco" and claim to have acquired substantial reputation in the market. The first petitioner who are original first defendant are an advertising agency and have been the advertising agents in respect of the product manufactured by the plaintiffs concern. The second petitioner is the Director and/or Partner of the first petitioner while third is the Proprietory concern of the first petitioner/and the defendant which is dealing in promoting advertising and marketing, is also a proprietory concern. The fifth petitioner are Union of India and they have been impleaded essentially as being the authority conducting the T.V. Programme popularly known as 'Doordarshan'. The plaintiffs have employed the first four petitioners-defendants as their advertising agents through their sister concern M/s. Modern Advertising Agency and Uta Advertising Agency. Deriving inspiration from some popular serial displayed on Doordarshan Network, the plaintiffs desired to have a similar project may be with a further desire to promote the sale of their products through such an advertisement, though according to them, they have been in that field of advertising their product prior thereto on Doordarshan. With this object negotiations were carried between the parties and ultimately an agreement was entered into under which the first petitioners were to act as their agents for the purpose of producing the serial known as 'Yeh Jo Hai Jindagi' and which would be displayed as plaintiffs' sponsored programme. The plaintiffs in turn agreed to pay the entire cost of the said production to the said agency. Under the same, fourth defendant had agreed to act as agent and to prepare the said serial the cost of which was to be borne by the producer and said serial consisted of different episode, each having duration of about 30 to 45 minutes. Thus the plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the said production while the defendants acted as agents of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration and exclusively on behalf of the plaintiffs, who undertook the liability of finance as also the risk. On that count the plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the said project and serial of the sponsored programme. In due course of time about 60 episodes were produced and displayed on the Network under which the plaintiffs had spent a substantial amount and also for the purpose of advertising the programme. The plaintiffs thus possess the entire serial including exclusive rights to use of the title.
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
