Injunction: Agreements entered between appellant (NHC) and respondent no.1 (SME) for rights of films for an amount of Rs.20 Crores – Disputes arose in relation to payments of amounts and burden of tax, which got amicably settled between the NHC and SME – Deed of settlement was executed in which the main stipulation was that NHC was to pay a further sum in four tranches – Termination notice issued by SME on ground of alleged non-compliance of the terms of deed of settlement – NHC filed a Commercial suit seeking declaration inter alia of permanent and temporary injunction restraining SME from disturbing the enjoyment of the licensed rights of the appellant – In between, a sub-license agreement was executed between the NHC and respondent no.2, GTP for rights of the said film for a certain period of time – Thereafter, GTP terminated the aforesaid sub-license with NHC and demanded refund – Single Judge of High Court granted interim injunction in favour of NHC – Division Bench, however, reversed the order of Single Judge – On Appeal, held: Prior to the execution of the Deed of Settlement, NHC had already paid a substantial amount in terms of initial agreement – Even after the deed of settlement, Rs. 5.46 crores had already been paid – Every payment made by NHC was against the invoices which were issued by SME – The only reason given by SME for not issuing the invoices with regard to the balance amount was that the liability of payment of GST accrue immediately on issuance of the invoices, which cannot be accepted – Considering the conduct of the parties, equity is in favour of NHC – NHC has made substantial payments and the balance which is little more than 10% of the total amount, has already been deposited in High Court in terms of the injunction order of Single Judge – NHC made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction – Balance of convenience is in favour of NHC – Considering the agreement entered with GTP during the pendency of the civil suit, GTP would also be govern by the injunction order – Order of the Single Judge of High Court to be restored.
Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727; Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 8; Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 117 : [1990] 1 SCR 332; Metro Marins and Anr. Vs. Bonus Watch Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 478; Best Seller Retail (India) Private Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 792 : [2012] 5 SCR 834; Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1999) 7 SCC 1 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 560 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.