The main legal point established is that an exclusive agreement with unreasonable and unconscionable terms is void and unenforceable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Injunction may not be an appropriate remedy in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sistani, J.

IA Nos. 4950/2007 & 4951/2007.

1. The Plaintiff company, namely, M/s. Simran Music Industry, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing audio cassettes. Defendant No. 1, namely, Mr. Prit Brar, is an aspiring singer. On 21.02.2005, the Plaintiff company entered into an exclusive sound recording agreement (hereinafter, "the impugned agreement") with Defendant No. 1 for a period of four years from 10.03.2005 to 11.03.2009. As per the terms of the impugned agreement, Defendant No. 1 was to sing and perform exclusively for the Plaintiff company. The Plaintiff company, in fact, did the sound recording for Defendant No. 1's maiden music album entitled "Teri Jehi Kudi" as well as his second music album entitled "Ek Tere Karke", the production and promotional costs of both of which were borne by Defendant No. 1 himself. Subsequently, on 19.03.2007, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff company that Defendant No. 1, in derogation of the terms of the impugned agreement, had recorded a music album entitled "Pind Wich Jogi Aaya" with Defendant No. 2, namely, M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. Aggrieved by Defendant No. 1's alleged breach of the impugned agreement, the Plaintiff company filed the present suit together with an application being IA No. 3519/2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby this Court vide order dated 28.03.2007 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from selling, recording, distributing, broadcasting or exploiting the music album entitled "Pind Wich Jogi Aaya", in contravention of the terms of the impugned agreement. Vide order dated 16.04.2007, the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2007 was modified to the extent that the ex parte ad interim injunction passed against Defendant No. 1 was also passed against Defendant No. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed applications being I.A. No. 4905/2007 and I.A. No. 4951/2007 respectively, seeking vacation of the order dated 28.03.2007 as modified by order dated 16.04.2007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and making audio cassettes, video cassettes as well as Compact discs. The Plaintiff enjoys a number of exclusive recordings with the well-known artists/singers in Punjabi language as well as in other languages also. The Plaintiff d has thus acquire an extensive goodwill and reputation in the market. The Plaintiff has spent large amounts on advertising and is a household name in India. Defendant No. 1 is a singer who had entered into an exclusive sound recording contract with the Plaintiff company. Defendant No. 2 is a recording company and is selling music cassettes that includes songs sung by Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement dated 21.02.2005. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 was a little known young singer and the Plaintiff discovered him and gave him a unique opportunity by utilising its corporate skills, resources and built up the image of Defendant No. 1 and promoted his carrier. To promote Defendant No. 1, appropriate songs and good quality music guidance was given for good performance as well as steps were also taken for promotion, publicity and marketing of the songs of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 agreed on the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21.02.2005. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 was to exclusively perform and sing for the Plaintiff company during the term of the agreement. The Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No. 2 was going to release the sound recordings sung by Defendant No. 1 in breach of the exclusive agreement dated 21.02.2005. The grievance of the Plaintiff being that the Plaintiff has committed breach of the negative covenant in the agreement dated 21.02.2005. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff company has invested considerably its corporate skills and resources in developing the m