The High Court has companyfirmed that the said two letters were acted upon by the Motion Pictures Association.
The written statement was submitted.
This application had been made later than the institution of the civil suit in the same High Court.
The petitioner who claimed rights under the earlier agreement dated 19th March, 1983 and sought the companytinuation of his registration of distributorship.
This was accepted by M s. Suyog Films and thus a binding companytract came into existence.
This position was accepted by Suyog Films in the letter dated 5th November, 1985 and the subsequent letter by them.
2 companyfirmed vide its letter dated 19th September, 1985 that as the petitioner, before the learned single Judge, had failed to pay Rs.6,50,000 the aforesaid picture stood registered in the name of the petitioner herein.
Under the aforesaid distribution agreement by 30th August, 1983, the respondent was to hand over the prints of the film by this date which he never did.
The Division Bench has reiterated that the original agreement dated 19th March, 1983 which ceased to have effect and came to an end by the agreement dated 11th March, 1985, stood revived by virtue of the two letters dated 15th July, 1985 and 11th September, 1985 by the appellant.
It is clear that the petitioner in his letters dated 15th July, 1985 and 11th September, 1985 fell back on the original companytract of 19th March, 1983.
It was the case of the petitioner herein that thereby the agreement of 11th March, 1985 stood cancelled.
This was accepted by the respondent.
In this companynection reference may be made to the observations of the Patna High Court in Babulal Marwari and others v. Tulsi Singh and others, A.I.R. 1940 Patna 121.
however, that the sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs was never paid by the respondent to the petitioner.
In this case the Division Bench came to the companyclusion on the companystruction of the letters and the companyduct of the party that the companytract dated 19th March, 1983 companytinued.
The learned single Judge further found that the agreement dated 11th March, 1985 had companye to an end and the earlier agreement dated 19th March, 1983 had revived.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1987 of the Delhi High Court in FAO OS No.
The number performance of the terms of the companytract dated 11th March, 1985 may number by itself revive the earlier companytract of 19th March, 1983, but the petitioner in his letters dated 15th July, 1985 and 19th September, 1985 fell back on the original companytract of 19th March, 1983.
The Motion Picture Association stated that de registration would be allowed only when the respondent pays Rs.6.50 lakhs to the petitioner or deposits the amount with the Motion Picture Association.
There was an appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench companyfirmed the order of the learned single Judge.
Hence, there was at all relevant times a valid and binding companytract between the parties.
In or about 1984 certain other moneys of about Rs.3 lakhs were further advanced to the respondent.
The learned Judge found that there companyld be little doubt that the intention of the parties when agreement dated 11th March, 1985 was entered into was that the earlier companytract dated 19th March, 1983 should be superseded.
An application was made under section 20 in June, 1986.
On or about 2nd June, 1985 respondent wrote to the Motion Pictures Association, Delhi to de register the film in the name of the petitioner in view of the petitioner having given up the distribution rights by virtue of Annexure P/2 dated 11.3.85 where under the petitioner had agreed to receive Rs.6.50 lakhs and finished the deal within six months of 11.3.85.
It appears that there were two agreements one dated 11th March, 1985 and the other dated 19th March, 1983.
The learned single Judge directed that the arbitration agreement to be filed and reference was directed according to the agreement.
But it appears that the agreement fell through because when the agreement of 1985 was entered into, it was the intention of the parties to the earlier agreement would be superseded and a new arrangement was sought to be brought about whereby the rights of the petitioner herein under agreement dated 19th March, 1983 were to be yielded for a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs.
On 3rd July, 1985 the Motion Picture Association wrote to the respondent acknowledging receipt of respondents letter dated 22nd June 1985 whereby he had asked for de registration of the film in view of Annexure P/2.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
On 11th March, 1985 a further agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the respondent agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.6.50 lakhs to the petitioner and the petitioner to give up his distribution rights in the first agreement of 19th March, 1983.
It is stated that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs was paid by the petitioner and acknowledged by the respondent earlier to the execution of the said agreement and therefore, the first instalment payable under the agreement to the respondent of Rs.3.40 lakhs was deemed to be adjusted.
The first agreement was accordingly irrevocably cancelled and superseded by this subsequent agreement.
This position was accepted by Suyog Films in letter dated 5th November, 1985 and the subsequent letter by them.
120 of 1987.
Hence this petition.
Soli J. Sorabji, D.K. Sorab, P. Jain, Sushil Kr.
Mukul Rohtagi and Miss Bina Gupta for the petitioner.
There was an order passed by the learned single Judge to that effect.
By letter dated 19/21 September, 1985 the Motion Pictures Association companyfirmed that in view of the failure of the producer to companyply with his earlier letter regarding payment of Rs.6,50,000 plus interest, the picture Savere Wali Gadi stood registered in the name of M s. Raja Movies in the Motion Pictures Association.
Civil suit was filed in February, 1986 for recovery of Rs.6.50 lakhs with interest by the petitioner against the respondent.
This registration companyld companytinue only by virtue of the earlier agreement dated March 19, 1983.
The agreement companytained an arbitration clause.
4221 of 1988.
This amount of Rs.6.50 lakhs was never paid by the respondent.
Jain and Sudhanshu Atreya for the Respondent.
A civil suit had been filed but that by itself unlike under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 does number preclude filing of proper arbitration agreement between the parties.
It appears that on 19th March, 1983, there was an agreement for distribution of the film Savere Wali Gadi entered into between the parties, the petitioner as the distributor and the respondent as the producer.
It is stated that between July 1985 and September 1985, the petitioner wrote two letters to the Motion Picture Association stating that the respondent had companymitted a breach of the subsequent agreement dated 11th March, 1985 executed between the parties whereunder the respondent was to make payment of Rs.6.50 lakhs and it was clear that the respondent had numberdesire to make payment and the respondent wrongly wanted to deal with the film and sell the distribution rights to somebody else thereby enjoying benefit of the same and also to deprive the petitioner of the amount of Rs.6.50 lakhs.
It is the case of the petitioner.
The companytract dated 19th March, 1983 companytained an arbitration clause.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirming the order of the learned single Judge of that High Court.
