Bombay High Court Restrains Trust from Exercising Right over 12 Dada Kondke Films

Bombay High Court Restrains Trust from Exercising Right over 12 Dada Kondke Films

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Everest Entertainment Ltd., thereby restraining a Trust from representing to any third parties till further order any rights pertaining to 12 films of famous Marathi actor and filmmaker late Dada Kondke, known for his comedy films.

The single judge Justice Manish Pitale also restrained the Bombay Film Enterprises Private Limited and National Film Development Corporation (NFDC) Ltd from releasing and handing over negatives/print positives or any material of 12 cinematograph films in their custody to Shahir Dada Kondke Pratishthan, the Trust and its trustees or anyone else other than plaintiff- Everest Entertainment Ltd.

In the present case, the plaintiff claimed to be assignee of copyrights in 12 films on the strength of an assignment deed dated 12th August, 2022, executed by defendant No.5- More in favor of the plaintiff.

It was the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.5 had acquired rights in the said films, on the basis of a Will dated 2nd January, 1998 executed by the original owner of copyright, Shri Dadasaheb Kondke, a famous film personality of Marathi film world.

The defendant No.5 claimed to be related to the late Shri Dadasaheb Kondke and the documents on record showed that a competent Court granted probate of Will by an order dated 19th December, 2008. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22nd July, 2019.

According to the plaintiff, under the said Will, specific rights were granted to defendant No.5 in the context of the aforesaid films, while a trust was created of which, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trustees in whose favour certain properties and rights therein were bequeathed to the trust.

Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar appearing for the plaintiff submitted that under the said Will, specific rights were granted to defendant No.5 in the context of the aforesaid films, while a trust was created of which, defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be trustees in whose favor certain properties and rights therein were bequeathed to the trust.

According to the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, on proper reading of the contents of the Will, it was clear that the rights were assigned to defendant No.5, who, in turn, executed assignment deed in favor of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the negatives pertaining to the said films were presently in the custody of laboratories of defendant Nos.3 and 4.

It was further contended that the aforesaid trust claimed that it had rights in the said films and had been addressing communications to defendant Nos.3 and 4, for handing over the negatives of the said films. It was in this backdrop that the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present proceedings.

The Court upon hearing the submissions, was of the opinion that in order to consider the limited ad-interim reliefs, claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, a perusal of the Will deed dated 2nd January, 1998, was necessary.

The Court on perusal of the same said that it showed that the plaintiff had indeed made out a prima facie case in its favor as clause No.18 of the said Will deed appeared to indicate that rights in the films in which, the original owner of the copyright, could assert his rights were bequeathed to defendant No.5.

The Court observed, the Will deed specifically bequeaths immovable properties in favor of the trust, which was also created under the said document. The reference to the films and the rights therein was found in clause No.18 and therefore, a strong prima facie case was made out by the plaintiffs, indicating that the residuary clause may not be resorted to, for examining as to whether the plaintiff can derive rights through defendant No.5 in the present case.

The Judge opined, “This court finds that defendant Trustees cannot claim that defendant More has absolutely no rights in the said films or that they are limited to making copies of the negatives… If limited ad-interim reliefs are not granted, there is every possibility of further complications arising in the matter and the plaintiff suffering grave and irreparable loss.”

It therefore restrained the trust from dealing with the negatives lying with them and also restrained the two organizations accordingly.

Lastly, the Court directed the defendants to file affidavits in reply to the plea within five weeks and rejoinder by the plaintiff within two weeks thereafter and listed the plea for 4th July and added that ad-interim reliefs shall continue to operate till then.