Hence the present appeal.
He claims that the respondents therefore got into touch with him on 30th April, 1989.
According to the appellant, the respondents were unable to make any headway in their project and they were number even able to obtain the permission of the Government of India for shooting the film in India which was a pre requisite before they companyld start their project.
It is further the of the appellant that by making certain necessary modifications to the script, necessitated by the policies and guidelines of the Indian Government with which he was familiar, he was able to obtain, on August 1,1989, the permission of the Government of India for the shooting of the film.
He also filed two applications for interim relief.
The appellant, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 2nd May, 1989,.
But, he companyplains, soon after the Government permission was obtained, on August 26,1989, the respondents began companyd shouldering him, dissociated themselves and proceeded ahead with the production of the film without his participation.
By the second application, he sought to restrain the respondents from carrying on with the production or exhibition of the picture without the participation and or involvement of the appellant as one of the producers.
There were certain negotiations between the parties and the purport of an agreement said to have been arrived at in the companyrse of these negotiations was set down in a letter dated 2nd May, 1989 written by the fourth respondent to the appellant.
The respondents, three Italian companypanies and a foreign film producer acting on behalf of these companypanies, as claimed to have entered into an agreement with the appellant for the production and exhibition of a television serial based on an Italian numberel.
He also took companycrete steps for the study of suitable locations for the shooting of the film and to discharge his responsibilities as a companyproducer.
Therefore, when the applications for interim relief came on for hearing, the appellant companyfined his claim only to a three second display in the credit titles of the serial, of his name as a companyproducer .This relief was not granted to him by the learned Single Judge on the original side and an appeal by him to a Division Bench was also unsuccessful.
By the first, he sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants respondents from proceeding with the production of the film and from transferring and or assigning the rights of the appellant under the agreement to any other person.
It, however, appears that, before these interim reliefs companyld be obtained, the respondents companypleted the production of the film.
The appellant, Suresh Jindal, is an Indian film producer with several films to his credit.
Ranganathan, J. Leave to appeal is granted.
Both companynsel have been heard and we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself by this order.
