M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD.) versus SURESH PRODUCTIONS & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 975 · Decided: 25-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT
ENTERPRISES LTD.)
v.
SURESH PRODUCTIONS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1716 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Cause of Action: Right to sue – Accrual of, when – On facts,
plaintiffs assigned telecasting right of 16 schedule films by
assignment deeds dated 23.12.1994 for a period of 9 years in favour
of defendant Nos.5 to 8 as requested by defendant No.4 – Issuance
of public notice in Film Magazine by plaintiff regarding the 16 films
– Claim by defendant N o.1 that they acquired satellite broadcasting
rights of the 16 Hindi films from defendant No.2, by assignment
deed dated 21.3.1997 for a period of 99 years – Suit by plaintiffs
in 2003, for declaration that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no manner
of right, title and interest in the Copyright in respect of the scheduled
films, and to pass a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant
Nos.1 to 4 – Trial court holding that the cause of action arose in the
year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim of the
first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs chosen to file the
suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement dated 10.10.1994 –
Dismissal of suit as barred by limitation – Cause of action to a
plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal
threat to infringe a right of the plaintiff – On facts, plaintiff having
already assigned their right for a period of 9 years by assignment
deed dated 23.12.1994, there was no cause of action during the
said period of 9 years – When the plaintiffs had already parted
with their right of telecasting films on 23.12.1994 there could not
have been any threat to their right in the year 1995 – Thus, the suit
filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation – Order passed by the High
Court upheld.
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 975
975
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the plaintiffs assigned their rights to
defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of defendant No.4 for a period
of 9 years, plaintiffs having parted with their satellite rights could
not have claimed any right for telecasting during the said period
of 9 years. Inter se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 which
begun with filing suit in Mumbai there could not have been any
cause of action for the plaintiffs to file a suit claiming telecasting
rights for themselves. Furthermore, it was the case of the
defendant No.3 itself that dispute between defendant No.3 and 4
subsided when the suit filed by defendant No.3 was returned in
the year 1995 itself. It was submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that even though DS filed a police complaint in the
year 1995 itself with regard to the alleged assignment dated
10.10.1994 but no further proceedings were taken by DS
thereafter. The trial court in its judgment has also returned a
finding that the assignment dated 10.10.1994 by DS in favour of
defendant No.4 and assignment dated 17.10.1994 by defendant
No.4 to 3 has not been proved. [Para 14][983-C-F]
1.2 The trial court by its judgment dismissed the plaintiffs’
suit having accepted the case of the plaintiffs regarding
assignment of telecasting rights of said schedule films i.e.
assignment of 23.12.1994 in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 8 at
the request of defendant No.4 for 9 years. The plaintiffs’ claim
for the right of schedule films arose only after 22.12.2003. They
having parted with their right, there was no real threat to their
right by any inter-se dispute between defendant Nos.4 and 3 or
other defendants. It was on 22.12.2003 that plaintiffs again became
entitled to assign telecasting rights of the aforesaid 16 films after
the expiry of the period of 9 years of assigning the telecasting
right of 16 films to defendant Nos.5 to 8 on the request of the
defendant No.4 on valuable consideration. [Para 15][984-B-D]
1.3 The trial court had observed that cause of occasion arose
in the year 1995 itself when the plaintiff got knowledge of claim
of the first defendant over the given films and plaintiffs have
chosen to file the suit in the year 2003 in respect of agreement
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
dated 10.10.1994. The trial court further held that plaintiffs sat
over their rights for eight long years, hence, suit is barred by
time. The suit which was filed in the year 1995 by defendant No.3
against defendant No.4 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai where
assignments dated 10.10.1994 and 17.10.1994 w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.