Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
GURBIR SINGH, J.
Sajjan Kumar Duhan – Appellant
Versus
Shehnaz Kaur @ Shehnaaz Gill – Respondent
CR No. 1855 of 2024
Decided On : 01-07-2024
Injunction - Agreement - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court interpreted the provisions of the CPC regarding temporary injunctions, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, ultimately favoring the plaintiff's position against an unfair contract.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that an agreement with the defendants was void and sought an injunction against them for defamation and ownership claims over her works, following a period of silence from the defendants after she rescinded the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court failed to recognize the plaintiff's lowered reputation due to the defendants' actions and that the agreement was likely void due to misrepresentation and inequality of bargaining power.
Issues: Whether the agreement was valid and enforceable, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction against the defendants' actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement was likely void due to misrepresentation and that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for an injunction based on the potential for irreparable harm to her reputation.
Result: The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's decision to grant the injunction.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized that contracts established through misrepresentation and inequality of bargaining power may be deemed void, and parties may be granted injunctions to prevent irreparable harm (!) (!) .
The plaintiff, a renowned artist, sought a declaration that the agreement with the defendants was void due to misrepresentation, lack of consideration, and unfair terms, and also requested an injunction to prevent the defendants from making ownership claims or defaming her (!) (!) .
The agreement in question was effective for five years, restricting the plaintiff from singing or recording for any other concern without the defendants' permission, and included a negative covenant that limited her professional activities during and possibly beyond the term (!) (!) .
The plaintiff rescinded the agreement in December 2020, asserting it was obtained through misrepresentation and was unfairly unilateral, and she worked independently for over two years without interference from the defendants (!) (!) .
The defendants contended that the agreement was valid, signed with consideration, and that the plaintiff’s actions post-agreement indicated acceptance. They also argued that certain restrictions were lawful and that the agreement was not void (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the defendants' actions—such as sending emails to third parties claiming ownership—damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and caused irreparable harm. It held that the agreement was likely rescinded and that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for an injunction, which was rightly granted (!) (!) .
The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, citing the potential validity of the agreement and lack of prima facie case, but the appellate court reversed this decision, considering the unfairness and the plaintiff’s rescission of the contract (!) (!) .
The court noted that the agreement contained unfair and one-sided terms, and that the plaintiff’s silence and continued work over two years implied acceptance of rescission. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as she would suffer irreparable harm if restrained from working (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the appellate court’s order for injunction and the findings that the agreement was likely rescinded and invalid due to unfairness and misrepresentation (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
GURBIR SINGH, J.
1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 29.08.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (for brevity – Appellate Court), thereby allowing appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the order dated 17.05.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar (Mohali) (for brevity – Trial Court), dismissing the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
2. The respondent before this Court namely Shehnaz Kaur @ Shehnaaz Gill is the plaintiff/applicant before the learned Trial Court and petitioners herein are the defendants/respondents. However, in order to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter shall be addressed as per their original status in the suit before the learned Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff Shehnaz Kaur @ Shehnaaz Gill filed suit for declaration that the Agreement dated 25.09.2019, executed between the plaintiff and defendants is void and unenforceable and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from raising any ownership claims/conflicts over the works, performances or other related projects/ activities, authored/performed by the plaintiff solely or jointly and further permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from defaming the plaintiff and contacting third parties or threatening them with legal action if they proceed to sign/work with the plaintiff. The said suit was also filed seeking damages/compensation for the loss of reputation. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed.
4. The facts, necessary for disposal of the instant petition, are that the plaintiff is a renowned and well respected Indian film actor, singer and model. Defendant no. 1 is the Proprietor of defendant no. 2 i.e.‘Simran Music Industries’, which also operates as ‘Single Track Studios’ with Youtube username ‘hawkrecords’. The plaintiff has sung as well as performed in numerous songs and music videos including one song titled ‘Vehem’, which was recorded by the plaintiff for the defendants in the year 2019. Neither any contract/agreement was signed between the parties for recording or producing the said song nor any amount or consideration was paid to the plaintiff for the said song.
5. In the year 2019 itself, the plaintiff was invited as a participant in a reality TV show ‘Big Boss Season 13’, which was premiered on national television on 01.10.2019, for which the plaintiff entered the Big Boss House on 27.09.2019. It was further contended that just two days prior to entering the Big Boss House, defendants approached the plaintiff requesting and pleading her to sign a quick “Memorandum of Understanding” regarding a show of intent with respect to their future working relationship. On denying the request of the defendants, it was conveyed to the plaintiff that it was nothing but a succinct MoU regarding song ‘Vehem’ and could always be modified, if need be. On repeated requests by the defendants, the plaintiff signed the same in hurry and left for Big Boss House. After the said show was over, she started getting many offers. However, to the great dismay of the plaintiff, she came to know that defendants were sending E-mails to third parties claiming that the plaintiff was their exclusive artist as per Agreement dated 25.09.2019 and was not allowed to appear in any other music video without the permission of defendants. When the plaintiff approached the defendants and demanded a copy of said Agreement dated 25.09.2019, they refused to share the same.
6. In May 2020, the defendants wrote another set of E-mails to another music label company, in which the plaintiff was working and demanded to settle considerations with them in case they wished to continue working with the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 09.05.2020 to the defendants, detailing all the illegal actions of the defendants and asking them to desist from a
The court established that contracts resulting from unequal bargaining power and misrepresentation may be deemed void, allowing for injunctions to protect parties from irreparable harm.
The court held that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, and restrictions on trade after termination violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Copy right of video songs – Interim injunction - No prejudice is caused to the Appellant by the impugned order. The objection to the exploitation by Respondent No.2 regarding publicity is irrelevant ....
Plaintiff must prove concrete evidence of defendant's unauthorized post-contract image use and nexus; weak evidence fails claim for damages.
Agreement to write the script – Enforcement of Rights - plaintiff, if succeeds in the suit, he will be entitled for damages and quantum of damages has to be ascertained only after trial.
The Plaintiff is the rightful owner of copyright in the music album 'Kamasutra - Moods of Love', with the court ruling that oral agreements regarding copyright assignments are insufficient under the ....
A contract is not concluded until there is consensus ad idem between the parties.
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
