Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Navroz Seervai, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Mr. Astad Randeria, Mr. Ankit Lohia, Ms. Arti Raghavan, Ms. Priyanka Khimani, Mr. Aasif Navodia, Ms. Ridhika Luthria and Mr. Rohit Lalwani i/b. Khimani and Associates for the applicant/plaintiff.
  • Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Ms. Apeksha Sharma, Ms. Monica Datta, Mr. Sanjeel Kadam and Mr. Akshay Ahluwalia i/b. Kadam and Co. for the defendants nos. 1 and 7.
  • Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Deepak Enakphale and Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar i/b. Murudkar and Co. for the defendant no. 2.
  • Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate a/w. Ms. Tanmayee Gadre, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Garodia and Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. Naik Naik and Co. for the defendant no. 3.
  • Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Rohan Kadam i/b. Mr. Mohanish Chaudhari for the defendant nos. 4 and 5.
  • Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir a/w. Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas and Mr. Yuvraj Choksy i/b. Veritas Legal for the defendant no. 6.
Judges
  • K.R Shriram, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Mr. Navroz Seervai, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Mr. Astad Randeria, Mr. Ankit Lohia, Ms. Arti Raghavan, Ms. Priyanka Khimani, Mr. Aasif Navodia, Ms. Ridhika Luthria and Mr. Rohit Lalwani i/b. Khimani and Associates for the applicant/plaintiff.
  • Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Ms. Apeksha Sharma, Ms. Monica Datta, Mr. Sanjeel Kadam and Mr. Akshay Ahluwalia i/b. Kadam and Co. for the defendants nos. 1 and 7.
  • Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Ashish Kamat, Mr. Deepak Enakphale and Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar i/b. Murudkar and Co. for the defendant no. 2.
  • Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate a/w. Ms. Tanmayee Gadre, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Garodia and Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. Naik Naik and Co. for the defendant no. 3.
  • Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior advocate a/w. Mr. Rohan Kadam i/b. Mr. Mohanish Chaudhari for the defendant nos. 4 and 5.
  • Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir a/w. Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas and Mr. Yuvraj Choksy i/b. Veritas Legal for the defendant no. 6.
Judges
  • K.R Shriram, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the release of the feature film "RANGOON." After extensive arguments over two and a half days, the court reserved its decision and informed the parties it would reassemble later the same day to pronounce its views on granting the injunction. The defendants contested the injunction, leading to the court considering conditions under which the injunction might be avoided.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether an ad-interim injunction should be granted to restrain the release of the film "RANGOON" as prayed for by the plaintiff.
  2. Whether the defendants' undertaking to furnish a bank guarantee could serve as an alternative to the injunction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court, after hearing the parties at length, expressed an inclination to grant the injunction in favor of the plaintiff to restrain the release of the movie "RANGOON." However, the court offered the defendants an opportunity to avoid the injunction by furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores from a nationalised bank, with interest at 10% per annum, in favor of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court, Bombay. The guarantee was to be valid initially for one year and renewable annually until the final disposal of the notice of motion and for two months thereafter. Upon the defendants' undertaking to provide such a guarantee, the court refrained from passing the injunction order. The court clarified that if the guarantee was not furnished by the prescribed date, the injunction would automatically be triggered. Further, the court noted that defendant no. 6 was not subject to any relief under the notice of motion and had not breached any confidentiality agreement. Procedural directions were given for filing further affidavits and removing office objections. Subsequently, it was clarified that defendant no. 2, Nadiadwala Grandson, would furnish the bank guarantee, with the CEO personally undertaking this responsibility. The court also agreed with the parties that no reasons would be provided for the order and that the matter would be heard afresh on the notice of motion without regard to the earlier observations.

Holding and Implications

The court declined to grant the ad-interim injunction restraining the release of the film "RANGOON" on the condition that the defendants furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 crores with interest as specified. Failure to furnish this guarantee by the stipulated date would result in the injunction being triggered automatically. The decision directly affects the parties by allowing the film's release subject to the security provided by the bank guarantee. No new legal precedent was established as the court reserved the right to hear the matter afresh on the notice of motion.

Show full summary ...

    Wadia Movietone Private Limited v. Vishal Bharadwaj

    K.R Shriram, J.:— The matter was argued at length over 2½ days. After the parties concluded their arguments at 1.00 p.m today, the court adjourned to the chamber to deliberate whether ad-interim relief of injunction on the release of the feature film “RANGOON”, as prayed for by the plaintiff, should be granted. At that time the court informed the counsel that it will reassemble at 5.00 p.m to pronounce its views.

    AT 5.00 P.M

    2. I pronounced that I am inclined to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the release of the movie “RANGOON” but if the defendants gave an undertaking to furnish on or before 4th March, 2017 a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the sum of Rs. 2 crores together with interest thereon at 10% p.a in favour of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay as per the format maintained by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, then I would not pass the order of injunction.

    3. Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior counsel, agrees and undertakes on instructions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the notice of motion as well as in the suit, they will furnish such a bank guarantee within the time prescribed. In view thereof, I am not passing an order of injunction against the release of the movie “RANGOON”.

    4. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3, jointly and/or severally, to furnish, on or before 4 March, 2017 a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the sum of Rs. 2 crores together with interest thereon at 10% p.a, initially for a period of one year and to be renewed year to year until the hearing and final disposal of this notice of motion and for two months thereafter, in the format maintained by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court. If not furnished, the injunction in terms of prayer clause-(b) will get triggered.

    5. So far as defendant no. 6 is concerned, the statement of Mr. Seervai that he is not seeking any reliefs against defendant no. 6 in this notice of motion and as it appears today, there is no breach by defendant no. 6 of the confidentiality agreement is noted.

    6. Should the defendants wish to file affidavit in reply to the notice of motion, they may do so and also serve a copy thereof within four weeks from today. Response affidavit, if any, to those affidavits to be filed and copy served within three weeks thereafter.

    7. The notice of motion be listed in due course.

    8. Within three weeks, all office objections in the notice of motion and plaint to be removed and numbered.

    24 FEBRUARY, 2017

    9. As it was not clear who would be furnishing the bank guarantee, the matter was placed today for directions. Mr. Ravi Kadam, senior counsel stated that the bank guarantee will be given by defendant no. 2, viz., Nadiadwala Grandson and the CEO of defendant no. 2 - Mr. Rakesh Madhotra was present in court and stated that he was making this statement on instructions from Mr. Rakesh Madhotra. The undertaking of Mr. Rakesh Madhotra for himself as well as on behalf of the company, defendant no. 2 that they will furnish the bank guarantee as mentioned above is accepted and so ordered.

    10. Therefore, in paragraph 4 above it is clarified that it will be defendant no. 2 who will be furnishing the bank guarantee.

    27 FEBRUARY, 2017

    11. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

    12. All the counsel agree that no reasons be given for this order. It is also made clear that at the time of hearing the notice of motion, the parties will be heard afresh and the observations made in paragraph 2 will not be kept in mind while deciding the notice of motion.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Wadia Movietone Private Limited v. Vishal Bharadwaj
    (Feb 27, 2017)