- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
G.G. Photo Ltd. v. Aftab Pictures (P) Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
This Original Application (O.A) was filed seeking an interim prohibitory order to prevent the respondents from delivering negatives or any release print of the Hindi film titled “Sun Zarra” and from releasing any print of the said film worldwide in any form, pending arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the 1st respondent. The applicant, a public limited company engaged in financing with its registered office in Mumbai, had entered into a finance agreement dated 19.2.2005 with the 1st respondent, who sought financial assistance of Rs. 75 lakhs for producing the Hindi film “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra”. Under the agreement, the 1st respondent assigned limited copyrights and broadcasting rights to the applicant. After payment was made, the 1st respondent allegedly breached the agreement. The applicant filed this O.A under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for interim relief. The respondents appeared and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application on grounds of jurisdiction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether this Original Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim prohibitory relief, is maintainable before this Court given the jurisdictional facts.
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in respect of the film “Sun Zarra” when the agreement and dispute relate to the film “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra”.
- Whether the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or the Copyright Act govern the maintainability and jurisdiction of this application.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The applicant contended that under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, a suit for copyright infringement could have been filed as the applicant has an office in Chennai as well.
- The violation of the film assignment agreement by the 1st respondent amounted to infringement of the copyright assigned in favor of the applicant.
- Accordingly, the applicant argued that it could maintain a suit before this Court, and if that is so, the Original Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable as per Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Arbitration Act.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the O.A on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of this Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the facts and documents, noting that the finance agreement for the film “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra” was executed in Mumbai and the financial transaction was also conducted in Mumbai. Both the applicant and the 1st respondent are located in Mumbai, as is the 2nd respondent, and the subject matter of the dispute—the copyrights relating to the Hindi film—arose in Mumbai. Consequently, the Court found no cause of action or part thereof arising within its jurisdiction.
The Court referred to Clause 12 of the finance agreement which stipulated arbitration with venue in Mumbai. It also relied on Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which defines jurisdiction for arbitration-related matters as the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter if it had been the subject of a suit. Since the dispute arose in Mumbai, jurisdiction lay there.
The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Arbitration Act govern the jurisdiction question, not the Copyright Act as contended by the applicant. Further, the Court noted that the relief sought was to prohibit release of the film “Sun Zarra,” which was not covered by the finance agreement between the parties concerning “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra.” Granting the relief would mean the Court would go beyond the subject matter of the agreement and involve third parties not before the Court.
Due to these jurisdictional and substantive reasons, the Court found no prima facie case for granting the interim relief.
Holding and Implications
The Court DISMISSED the Original Application No. 123/2006 for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a prima facie case.
The direct effect of this decision is that the applicant is denied interim prohibitory relief against the respondents concerning the film “Sun Zarra.” No broader precedent was established beyond the jurisdictional determination and the scope of the arbitration agreement.
1. This Original Application has been filed for the grant of an interim prohibitory order, by way of interim protection, prohibiting the respondents from delivering the negatives or any release print of the Hindi Cinematograph film titled “Sun Zarra” and releasing any print of the said film anywhere in the world in any form whatsoever pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings contemplated between the applicant and the 1st respondent.
2. The applicant is a public limited company engaged in the business of financing. The registered office of the applicant is at Mumbai. The 1st respondent approached the applicant to render financial assistance for a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs for producing a Hindi film “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra”. A finance agreement dated 19.2.2005 was entered into between the applicant and the 1st respondent. As per the agreement dated 19.2.2005, the 1st respondent assigned the limited Copyright of the Whole World Satellite Television exclusive broadcasting rights, Overseas Satellite Television for multiple telecasts and cable TV rights for a period of five years in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 75 lakhs was paid by the applicant to the 1st respondent on 19.2.2005 After receiving the entire amount of Rs. 75 lakhs, the 1st respondent committed serious breach of the agreement. As the agreement contained an arbitration clause, the applicant-Company has filed this O.A under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the aforesaid relief.
3. Telegraphic notice was ordered by this Court on 20.2.2006 and the matter was posted to 22.2.2006 for further hearing. On 22.2.2006 the respondents entered appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this O.A on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
4. I heard the learned counsel appeared on either side.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit contended that as per Section 62 of the Copyright Act, a suit would have been filed for infringement of copyright as the applicant is having office in Chennai also. Further, violation of the film assignment agreement by the 1st respondent amounts to infringement of the copyright assignment assigned in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant can maintain a suit before this Court. If that be so, this O.A filed under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable as per Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act.
6. I have given my due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the views expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. On a perusal of the affidavit and the documents filed along with this O.A, I find that the film assignment agreement for the assignment of the film ‘Chand Sa Roshan Chehra’ was executed in Mumbai on 19.2.2005 between the applicant and the 1st respondent. The financial arrangement of Rs. 75 lakhs was also made by the applicant by way of cheque drawn on I.O.B, Isckon Branch, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049. The applicant company and the 1st respondent company are situated in Mumbai. So is the case of the 2nd respondent. The subject-matter of the dispute also, namely, the copyrights of the Hindi film has to be produced in Mumbai. In such circumstances, I do not find any cause of action or part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Clause 12 of the financial agreement dated 19.2.2005 deals with reference of any dispute to arbitration and the venue of arbitration is in Mumbai. Further, as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act 26 of 1996, Court having jurisdiction is the Court having jurisdiction to determine the question forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit. The jurisdiction of the Court is made dependent solely on the subject-matter of the dispute. In this case, the subject-matter of the dispute has arisen in Mumbai. Hence, I am of the opinion that this O.A filed under Section 9 of the Act before this Court cannot be maintained for want of jurisdiction. When the provisions of the Act is very clear in regard to jurisdiction, any application filed under Section 9 of the Act is to be decided only with reference to those provisions of the Act and not with reference to the provisions of the other Act, like Copyright Act as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. Even otherwise, the relief sought for cannot be granted for the simple reason that the finance agreement dated 19.2.2005 entered into between the applicant and the first respondent is for the production of Hindi film “Chand Sa Roshan Chehra”. But the prohibitory order has been sought for to prohibit the respondents from releasing the print of the Hindi Cinematograph film “Sun Zarra”, for which there is no agreement between the applicant and the 1st respondent. If the prayer is granted, not only this Court would go outside the subject-matter of the agreement entered into between third parties in suit who are not before this Court.
9. Therefore, there is no prima faice case made out by the applicant. On this ground also, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly, O.A No. 123/2006 is dismissed.
Alert