VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J. - (1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 22.5.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for damages and injunction. Appellant/plaintiff sought a money decree of Rs.4 lacs against the respondents/defendants for telecasting the film 'COMPANY' on 15.7.2007 without any consent from the appellant/plaintiff and also sought injunction against the respondents/defendants from telecasting the film COMPANY except as per the instructions and payment to the appellant/plaintiff.
(2.) Appellant/plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that she acquired terrestrial TV rights in respect of the film COMPANY from M/s Spotlight vide agreement dated 21.7.2006. Appellant/plaintiff was carrying on business in the name of M/s Media International. M/s Spotlight had purchased rights in the film from M/s Matrix Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. M/s Matrix Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. had purchased rights in the film from M/s RGV Tele Video. M/s RGV Tele Video had purchased rights in the film from M/s Endeavour in terms of an agreement dated 25.11.2003. M/s Endeavour had purchased rights in the film from original producer M/s Vyjayanthi Movies Verma Corporation Production. In the plaint it was pleaded that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 had telecasted the subject film on Doordarshan once on 25.11.2006 and for this telecast paid the telecasting amount to the appellant/plaintiff. It is pleaded in the plaint that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 however without any further agreement with the appellant/plaintiff again telecasted the film 'COMPANY' on Doordarshan on 15.7.2007. It was pleaded in the plaint that since telecast has been done of the film on 15.7.2007 without any consent from and without making payment to the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant/plaintiff is hence entitled to the amount of Rs.4 lacs and that the respondents/defendants were to be restrained from making payment of the royalty amount to anybody except to the appellant/plaintiff.
(3.) Written statement was filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 by pleading that M/s Matrix Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. had assigned terrestrial rights of the subject film to M/s Mima Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010. The telecast of the subject film was offered by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 for a single telecast on DD-1 on 25.11.2006 i.e prior to 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2010. The second telecast was offered to respondent no.1/defendant no.1 by M/s Mima Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vide its letter dated 31.5.2007 attaching all the relevant documents i.e the title documents of the assignment rights and consequently the film was re-telecasted on 15.7.2007 on DD-1. The royalty of the film was accordingly released to M/s Mima Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd, and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount because no link documents were produced by the appellant/plaintiff to prove her terrestrial rights in spite of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 asking the appellant/plaintiff to produce the necessary documents. The necessary documents and the requisite link of documents were in fact provided to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 by M/s Mima Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and to whom therefore the telecast royalty amount was paid. The suit was hence prayed to be dismissed as the appellant/plaintiff had failed to provide the requisite link documents to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 whereas the complete chain of documents were provided by M/s Mima Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. to whom payment was made.;