Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1827 (BOM)

Prem Mohanlal Girdhani v. Percept Picture

2012-09-27

ANOOP V.MOHTA

body2012
Judgment Heard finally by consent at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner has moved this Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'Arbitration Act'), alleging that there is an arbitration agreement which permit the Petitioner, who is the Writer member, to lodge a complaint before the Writers' Association as well as Producers' Association (IMPPA). Except averments, there is nothing on record. The Petitioner however, indicates that a complaint dated 8th September 2012 filed before the Writers' Association (Dispute Settlement Committee). A similar application dated 11th September 2012 is also filed before the IMPPA. The case is that all these applications could not be considered, since the Tribunal/ Committee are not available for adjudication and as there is urgency, in view of the fact that the Film called "KAMAAL DHAMAAL MALAMAAL" is due to release on 28th September 2012. It is also averred that his idea/script got registered in the year 2008 with the Writers' Association, titled as "TERE CHAKKAR MEIN", has been used without his permission and therefore, the Petitioner is seeking interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus:- “(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of arbitration proceeding the Respondent be restrained by order and injunction from in any manner releasing exhibiting exploiting any film including the film titled “KAMAAL DHAMAAL MALAMAAL” having similar story to the story written by the Petitioner more particularly appearing Exhibit-A and B to the Petition in any manner whatsoever. (b) that interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) above.” 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent disputed all the aspects including the maintainability of present Petition on a foundation that there exists no arbitration clause and/or agreement between the parties and even on merit, there is no case for injunction. 4. The basic requirement of section 9 Petition is the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties. There is serious dispute about the same. However, there is no serious dispute with regard to the application/complaint so filed by the Petitioner. This itself means that the competent Committee is there to consider the case of the Petitioner on all respects including the merit. 5. There is serious dispute about the same. However, there is no serious dispute with regard to the application/complaint so filed by the Petitioner. This itself means that the competent Committee is there to consider the case of the Petitioner on all respects including the merit. 5. The basic requirements of grant of any injunction/protection under section 9, though the point of existence of arbitration clause is uncleared, are; prima facie case on merit, and the balance of convenience and the equity. This Court needs to consider grant of injunction and/or interim relief, as prayed, only if these elements are available. Those are missing in the case. 6. After hearing both the parties, considering the averment so made as well as the documents filed by the Respondent on record, I am inclined to observe that unless the Petitioner proved his case on merit as averred in relating to the idea/concept so reflected in his registered script/story by comparing with the Film title "KAMAAL DHAMAAL MALAMAAL", it is difficult to accept the contentions at this stage. The comparison means evidence and the trial. At this stage, on the basis of 30 second promo as averred in the Petition of the Respondent's film, it is difficult to accept the case as averred basically for passing any ad-interim or interim order as prayed. 7. However, it is made clear that the remedy whatsoever available to the petitioner, based upon the already lodged complaints, the Petitioner is free to pursue the same. It is also made clear that the observations even if made in this Petition are prima facie to decide the present section. I am inclined to observe that all points are kept open. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that let the directions be issued to the Committee and/or alleged Tribunal to dispose of his complaints. In my view, this direction cannot be issued. The Petitioner, however, is at liberty to pursue for urgent reliefs, if any. In view of above itself the Petition is disposed of finally. 9. Resultantly, I am not inclined to grant any interim order and/or final order on this application. In view of above, keeping all points open, the Arbitration Petition is disposed of, with liberty. No cost.