The main legal point established in the judgment is that antecedent rights of third parties, acknowledged and accepted by the Plaintiff, cannot be challenged at a later stage, and the Plaintiff's rights in the film '83' arose only upon execution of the Consent Minutes of Order.

ORDER

1. This Interim Application is being heard at the ad- interim stage. This has made clear by the prior order of this Court dated 16th February, 2022 when the Interim Application had come up under the caption for ad-interim relief. A statement had been made by Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No.4 and Mr. Ashish Kamath, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.5 that the respective Defendants shall only telecast the subject film titled "83" on satellite and digital media on or after 20th March, 2021. This statement was accepted by this Court. It was further noted in the said order that Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are showing promos or publicity of the subject film and will continue to do so. This was subject to further orders of this Court in the Interim Application. Accordingly, the pleadings were directed to be completed and the matter was to be listed under the caption "ad-interim relief on 14th March, 2022. The Interim Application has thereafter been heard from 15th March, 2022 for ad-interim relief.

2. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has applied for ad-interim relief seeking an order of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 from releasing, broadcasting, telecasting and / or exploiting or using any of the elements of the cinematograph film through satellite, digital and / or like media.

3. The present Suit was filed on 14th February, 2022. In the Plaint, it is stated that the cause of action arose on 10th February, 2022 when the Plaintiff learnt of unauthorised delivery of the subject film vide February, 10 email and that the cause of action is continuing one. It appears that the real dispute in the matter before this Court is with regard to the interpretation of the Clauses of the Consent Terms / Consent Minutes of Order entered into between the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 in Execution Proceedings being Execution Application (L) No.27808 of 2021. The Execution Proceedings were for execution of the Consent Arbitration Award dated 3rd March, 2021 in arbitral proceedings between the Plaintiff, one Madhu Mantena as claimants against Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 as well as Anurag Kashyap, Vikramaditya Motwane and Vikas Bahl. In the Arbitral proceedings between these parties, the Consent Award was arrived at on 3rd March, 2021.

4. Under paragraph 32 of the Consent Award it was ordered and directed that all intellectual property rights and exploitation of the subject film shall immediately vest in Defendant No.3 subject to the following rights already granted to third parties as on the date of the Consent Award i.e. 3rd March, 2021. The concerned agreements to note are the Worldwide Satellite Rights as per contract dated 29th June, 2017 with Defendant No.4 - Star India and Worldwide digital rights as per contract dated 22nd May, 2019 with Defendant No.5 - Netflix Global LLC.

5. Thereafter, there were certain disputes with regard to the execution of the Consent Award and Petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were filed. It is necessary to note that in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 18152 of 2021, the Plaintiff being the Petitioner therein has not disputed the satellite or digital rights created in favour of Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the subject film "83". The prayer in that Arbitration Petition against Defendant Nos.4 and 5 was only to deposit in this Court all amounts payable by Defendant Nos.4 and 5 to Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under the aforementioned agreements.

6. It is necessary to note that Defendant Nos.1 and 3had entered into Consent Terms on 6th December, 2021 to vest in the Plaintiff 37.5% intellectual property rights in the subject film. These Consent Terms were arrived at since it was alleged by the Plaintiff that Defendant No.2 had failed to comply with its obligations under the Consent Award. The Consent Terms was taken on record by this Court vide order dated 8th Februar