SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 17

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
, J
Sanjay Jain v. Raj Kumar Saha and Others
G. A. No. 2865 of 2013



The judgment emphasizes the principles of partnership obligations and interim reliefs in disputes regarding financial claims in film production agreements.

Headnote:The suit pertains to a claim for monetary relief of Rs. 64,81,982/- related to a film production agreement. The petitioner contends that he advanced funds for film production, while the respondents claim he is bound by an earlier partnership deed. The Court finds a prima facie case for the petitioner and grants an injunction restraining the respondents from using funds related to the film pending trial. The respondents are also directed to hand over film cassettes to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. claim for financial relief tied to film production. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. counterclaims and allegations regarding partnership obligations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. court's considerations on interim relief and evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. injunction to protect funds related to film production. (Para 23)
5. order for delivery of cassettes and resolution of disputes. (Para 24 , 25)

1. In a suit for money decree for Rs. 64,81,982/- as also declaration and injunction, the petitioner has filed the present application for the following interim reliefs: -
'(a) An order of injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from realising money collected on account of the said film titled 'Black Mail' from any of the other defendants / respondents and / or if already realised from using the same till such time the claim of the plaintiff / petitioner in respect of the said film is settled;
(b) An order of injunction be made restraining the defendants / respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10 and 11 either by themselves or through their men, servants, agents assigns or any of them from disbursing and / or releasing money collected by them on account of the said film titled 'Black Mail' to the defendant / respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, in any manner whatsoever;
(c) Receiver be appointed to take possession of D 5 Cassette for UFO of the said film titled 'Black Mail' and / or any copies thereof from the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and / or their men, servants and / or agents with direction on such receiver to make over the same to the plaintiff;
(d) Receiver so appointed to forthwith take in his possession and / or custody total amount collected and / or realised by the defendants / respondents in connection with the said film titled 'Black Mail' with direction upon such receiver to keep such money in an interest bearing fixed deposit account till disposal of the instant application;' Contention of the petitioner: -

2. The petitioner carries on business of manufacturing and trading of readymade garments. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 carry on business of production of movie in co - partnership under the name and style of 'Mutual Film Production', the respondent no. 3. The respondent nos. 4 and 11 are the distributors of film and / or cinema hall owners.

3. On or about April 1, 2012, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 approached the petitioner for a loan of around Rs. 10 lakhs as part finance for the purpose of production of a Bengali film called 'Black Mail' (the said 'Film'). The said respondents offered to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and further represented that the film would be released by November / December 2012 and the sum financed by the petitioner together with interest would be first paid to the petitioner from the sale of the satellite rights of the said film. Relying on such representation of the said respondents between 3rd April, 2012 and 19th August, 2012 the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 12,65,000/- to the said respondents.

4. On August 23, 2012, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 procured the petitioner's signature on a document captioned 'Deed of Partnership' which the petitioner signed without reading, relying on the said respondents. Subsequently, however, the said respondents asked the petitioner to ignore the said document and the same was given a go bye and was never given effect to.

5. In October, 2012, shooting of the said film was completed and Censor certificate was obtained by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 5th November, 2012, the original whereof was kept by them with the petitioner. Since the release of the film was nowhere in sight, the petitioner made enquiry from the said respondents. On or about December 25, 2012 the said respondents offered to make the petitioner producer of the said film upon the petitioner investing a further sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in the said film which would be utilized for pre - releasing, advertising and promotion of the said film. The



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top