C. L. Chaudhry ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff s suit for rendition of account and injunction against the defendant on the following allegations; That the plaintiff company entered into an agreement dated 23 4-1982 with the defendant, by which the plaintiff was appointed a distributor for the picture dasi for Delhi-UP territory. Therefter, the plaintiff relinquished its rights of distributor in favour of the defendants on the defendants agreeing to refund to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,46,000. 00 and further a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. It is further stated that the defendants admitted and acknowledged that they will again appoint the plaintiff as distributor for Delhi U. P. teeritory for a period of ten years from the first release in Delhi-U. P. territory. It is claimed that the agreement further provided a negative convenant that the defendants shall not directly or indirectly release or cause to be released the said picture in Delhi and U. P. on television for a period of three years from the first release date of the picture. A sum of Rs. 4,46,000. 00 was to remain as deposit with the defendant. It is further stated that on 23-4-1982, another specific agreement was entered into by which it was provided that the defendants would give to the plaintiff 50% of the collection of the amount received by them by exhibition of picture dasi on television. In pursuance to these terms, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 at the time of delivery of prints. The plaintiff has been exhibiting and exploiting the said picture in Delhi and U. P. after April, 1982. The statements of account have been duly remitted to the defendant, the last being dated 30-9-1986. The defendants were informed specifically that the amount was outstanding as the picture had not been doing good business in the market. It is claimed that huge amounts are due from the defendants to the plaintiff after adjusting all the amounts received by the plaintiff by exhibiting and exploiting the said picture. It-is further stated that on 8-11-1986 Shri Subash Verma defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff in their office at Delhi and assured that they would pay Rs. 50,000. 00 and the plaintiff should permit the defendants to exhibit the picture on television on 9-11-1986 and assured and promised that a payment of Rs. 50,000. It-is further stated that on 8-11-1986 Shri Subash Verma defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff in their office at Delhi and assured that they would pay Rs. 50,000. 00 and the plaintiff should permit the defendants to exhibit the picture on television on 9-11-1986 and assured and promised that a payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 would be made to the plaintiff on account positively by 10-11-1986. The plaintiff states that the defendants have to receive Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs from Delhi Doordarshan depending upon the categorisation of the picture Dasi and the share of the plaintiff is 50%. Along with this suit, an application under Order 38 rule 5 Civil Procedure Code has been filed seeking attachment before judgment of the amount lying in the account of the defendant with the Delhi Door Darshan. ( 2 ) THE defendant has contested the claim of the plaintiff. Written statement as well as reply have been filed on behalf of the defendant. A preliminary objection has been taken regarding the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the agreement dated 23-4-1982 was entered into between the parties at Bombay, Clause 21 of the agreement specifically provides that the agreement has been made, signed and delivered at Bombay and as such the Bombay Courts alone shall have jurisdiction on the same for any legal reference. It is further stated that subsequent agreement dated 23-4-1982 on the basis of which the plaintiff has claimed fifty per cent share in the exhibition of the picture at Delhi Door Darshan was made a part of the agreement dated 23-4-1982. The other point raised is that the suit for account is not maintainable. On merits, the agreement dated 23-4-1980 is not denied. It is asserted that the defendants under the agreement dated 23-4-1982 held an undefeasible right in them to exhibit and exploit the picture on television. The defendant got a print from the plaintiff for the purpose of screening the picture on the television. The print received from the plaintiff was sent to Door Darshan Kendera, New Delhi for its exhibition on the national hook-up by the Door Darshan. The claim of the plaintiff that Mr Suhash had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000. 00 to the plaintiff after the screening of the picture on the television is denied. The print received from the plaintiff was sent to Door Darshan Kendera, New Delhi for its exhibition on the national hook-up by the Door Darshan. The claim of the plaintiff that Mr Suhash had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000. 00 to the plaintiff after the screening of the picture on the television is denied. It is further stated that there is no basis for the plaintiff to claim 50% of the amount due to the defendant from Door Darshan because the plaintiff was a distributor for one of the territories alone viz, Delhi-UP territory and there are six other major territories wherein the said picture was televised on 9-11-1986 on the national hook-up through more than 185 transmission centres. Delhi-UP territory covers only Delhi, Lucknow and Mussourie for which Door Darshan pays only Rs. 30,800. 00 for Delhi and low power transmission centres. For Lucknow TV Centre, Door Darshan pays Rs. 15,500. 00, in all for Delhi-UP territory Rs. 46. 300. 00 would be payable by the Door Darshan to the defendant. The alleged claim of 50% for the said amount would be Rs. 23,150. 00. ( 3 ) I have beard the learned counsel for the parties. The first contention raised on behalf of the defendant is that this Hon ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Reliance is placed on Clause 21 of the agreement dated 5-4-1982. "21. That this agreement has been made, signed and delivered here at Bombay and as such the Bombay Courts alone shall have jurisdiction on the same for any legal reference. " ( 4 ) THE plaintiff is relying upon the other agreement of the same date 23-4-1982 regarding its 50% share for exhibition of the picture on Delhi Television. This agreement was also made a part of the agreement dated 23-4-1982. Prima facie I am of the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of AIR 1980 Gujrat 184 In my view that authority does not support the plaintiff so far as the facts of this case are concerned. It appears that first agreement was entered into on 23-4-1982 which contained 21 clauses. Thereafter, a supplementary agreement was entered into on the same date by which the plaintiff further paid Rs. 50,000. 00 making the total advance to Rs. 4,96,000. 00. It appears that first agreement was entered into on 23-4-1982 which contained 21 clauses. Thereafter, a supplementary agreement was entered into on the same date by which the plaintiff further paid Rs. 50,000. 00 making the total advance to Rs. 4,96,000. 00. In the supplementary agreement, it is stated that in the event, the said picture dasf is exhibited by the defendant on Delhi Television, then the amount payable to the defendant for such exhibition by the Delhi Television shall be shared equally i. e. 50% each subject, however, that by that time the plaintiff had not recouped the full amount of Rs. 4,96,000. 00. The amount of 50% so paid to the plaintiff shall be appropriated and/or adjusted by the plaintiff towards the amount of Rs. 4,96,000. 00 and due credit whereof shall be given by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff is claiming that upto the date the picture was televised a huge amount was due to them and as such they were entitled to 50% share of the amount received from the Doordarshan Kendra. According to the defendants, the total amount to be paid for Delhi-UP by the Doordarshan Is Rs. 46,300. 00, the half of which would be Rs. 23,150. 00. I think, it would be fair if this amount is retained by the Doordarshan Kendra. In the result, the injunction order dated 14-11-1986 is modified to the extent that the defendant would be entitled to realise the amount from Doordarshan Kendra towards the charges payable to them for exhibiting the picture Dasi on the television, except an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00, which may be kept with the Doordarshan Kendra till further orders. It is disposed of.