LexNARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO. versus SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 857 [2022] 1 S.C.R. 857 857 NARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO. v. SHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 1867-1868 of 2022) MARCH 07, 2022 [VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] 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 A B C D E F G H 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R. 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. Case Law Reference 1990 (supp) SCC 727 referred to (1981) 4 SCC 8 referred to [1990] 1 SCR 332 referred to (2004) 7 SCC 478 referred to [2012] 5 SCR 834 referred to [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 560 referred to CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1867- 1868 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Commercial Appeal (L) No.8026 of 2020 in Notice of Motion No.2591 of 2019 in Commercial I.P. Suit No.1387 of 2019 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.9909 of 2020 in Notice of Motion No.2591 of 2019 in Commercial I.P Suit No.1387 of 2019. With Civil appeal Nos.1869-1870 of 2022. Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Anirudh Bhatia, Ms. Deepshikha Mishra, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the Appellant. A B C D E F G H 859 Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Advs., Mehul M. Gupta, Ms. Shreya Parikh, Archit Jayakar, Ms. Divya Tyagi, R. P. Gupta, Aurup Dasgupta, Rohan Thawani, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Ms. Gunjan Ahuja, Advs. for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was passed : ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. In connection with a suit for injunction and other reliefs filed by the appellants, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted an order of interim injunction, delivered on 9th March, 2020 which was challenged in appeals filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeals have been allowed and the order of interim injunction granted by the Single Judge has been reversed by the Appellate Bench. Questioning the legality of the said order of the Division
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.