Bombay High Court
Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs Rbep Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. And 7 ... on 23 January, 2023
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023
11-ial-25441-2022.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.25441 OF 2022
IN
COMM EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO.20885 OF 2022
Mad Man Film Ventures Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
RBEP Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, Rohaan Cama, Rohan Dakshini,
Janaki Garde, Kyrus Modi, Shamant Satiya and Aman Sadiwala i/b.
Rashmikant and Partners for the Applicant.
Pooja Tidke with Krushi Barfiwala with Sanaea Laskari i/b. Parinam
Law Associates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate with Rohan Sawant i/b. Devendranath
Joshi for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Prakash Shinde, Ms. Niyati Merchant, Mr.
Yash Dhruva and Mr. Harsh Sheth i/b. MDP & Partners for the
Respondent No.3.
Prasad Shenoy i/b. Devashish Godbole for Respondent No.7
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J
DATE : 23 January 2023
ORDER :
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant is seeking the relief of disclosure against Respondent Nos.1, 2 or 7 of any offers 1/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc received and / or transactions entered into between these Respondents directly, or through their affiliates, subsidiaries, agents or assigns, with any party in respect of any licensing, exploitation and /or production of any 'Singham' films, including derivative work in connection with or emanating from Singham or sequels,prequels, spin-offs thereof, for any platform, mode, format or media. Further relief is sought with regard to implementation of certain clauses of Consent Terms viz. Clauses 36, 37,38 and 39 which are relevant for a prima facie determination and relevant injunctions restraining these Respondents from acting contrary to these Clauses.
2. Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant / Plaintiff has moved this Interim Application for ad- interim relief in view of the Applicant asserting its derivative rights under the aforementioned Clauses and particularly with regard to the funding as well as exploitation of what he claims is the derivative work of the film 'Singham' viz. the film 'Singham 3'. The urgency for moving this Application for ad-interim relief is that these Respondents are in the process of granting exploitation and distribution rights in the film 'Singham 3' to third parties without notice to the Applicant which according to him would be in breach of 2/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc the Consent Terms.
3. The Applicant has averred in paragraph 2.8a of the Interim Application that, it had learnt from news reports that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 are proposing to create a derivative work of the film 'Singham' using the character Singham referred to as 'Singham 3' and that the Applicant through its Advocates had addressed a letter on 27th June, 2022 putting Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 to notice of its rights and calling upon Respondent No.2 inter alia to comply with the order and Consent Terms and provide the Applicant a right to fund 50% of the project 'Singham 3' as provided in Clause 36 of the Consent Terms. By the said letter, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 were put to notice of Clause 33 of the Consent Terms and further that the derivative works will remain with Respondent No.2 and cannot be transferred or vest in any other party. The Applicant had also called upon the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 to make payment of its dues as per the Consent Terms. The Advocates for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 issued a response dated 26 th July, 2022 wherein they denied that the Applicant's rights is in respect of the derivative work viz. 'Singham 3'.
3/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc
4. According to the Applicant there has been a breach of the Consent Terms dated 6th December, 2021 forming part of the order dated 8th December, 2021 passed by this Court and in respect of which execution has been sought. The present Interim Application is taken out in these Execution Proceedings.
5. Mr. Khambata has taken this Court through the Clauses of the Consent Terms dated 6th December, 2021. It would be necessary to reproduce clauses 33 to 39 which are as under :-
33. Agreed, ordered and directed that 50% of the intellectual property rights including derivative rights in the film titled 'Singham' (Singham) shall immediately vest absolutely in MMVPL. All exploitation rights in Singham shall however continue to remain exclusively with the Company.
Parties have entered into an Agreement dated 6th December, 2021 to record transfer and vesting of the said rights in favour of MMVPL. The said Agreement is at Schedule '8' hereto.
34. Agreed, ordered and directed that the rights which have already been created in respect of Singham prior to these Consent Minutes of Order are set out in Schedule 9 hereto.
35. Reliance Studios confirms and undertakes that apart from the rights which have already been created as detailed in Schedule 9 hereto, Reliance 4/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc Studios and / or its affiliates, subsidiaries and / or assigns have not created any other right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever, in connection with Singham.
36. Agreed, ordered and directed that in the event any derivative work in connection with or emanating from Singham is to be produced, including but not limited to any prequel, spin-off or sequel of Singham, MMVPL may propose to finance / fund 50% of the cost of production of such derivative work on the same terms as may be offered to other third parties, including to Reliance Studios and the Company. Reliance Studios and / or the Company shall consider such offer in good faith and accordingly decide to accept or decline such proposal.
37. Agreed, ordered and directed that the Company has the right to license derivative works of Singham or exploitation thereof to a third party, including Rohit Shetty Picturez LLP, subject to such third party making payment directly to MMVPL in accordance with the following terms:-
(i) for each theatrically released Singham films and / or any future films being a derivative work of the Singham films and / or any other derivative work of the Singham films, in which the character 'Singham' or any other character in Singham film appears in such film and / or derivative works for more than 20 minutes screen time: higher or: (a) 2.5% cost of production including above the line costs; or (b) 2% of the domestic net box office collection (gross revenue minus taxes); payment towards (i) (a) shall be basis the estimated production cost prior to release and the residual payment shall be made 60 days after release of 5/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc such film, it being clarified that this fee is applicable per film / derivative work, and not on a per-character basis;
(ii) for each theatrically released Singham films and / or any future films being a derivative work of the Singham films and / or any other derivative work of the Singham films in which the character 'Singham' or any other character in Singham film appears in such film and / or derivative works for equal to or less than 20 minutes screen time:-
0.75% of the domestic net box office collection (gross revenue minus taxes), it being clarified that this fee is applicable per film / derivative work, and not on a per-character basis; and
(iii) for other audiovisual works including television series, web-series, digital and / or animation productions: 0.5% of the revenue / margin / producer fee / production service fee of each such audio visual works / productions. It is clarified that the intellectual property created under any license in para 36 is not being assigned under these Consent Minutes of Order.
38. While exploiting any right in relation to Singham, if the Company receives an offer regarding the grant of any exploitation and distribution rights in Singham for any platform, mode, format or media (known now or discovered in future), from any third party, then the Company shall notify MMVPL regarding such offer in writing (e-mail permitted) setting out the proposed license fee and the license period ("Company's Offer"). In the event MMVPL procures or better such offer by 10% of the license fee (MMVPL's Counter Offer"), then MMVPL shall communicate (e-mail permitted) days from the 6/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc date on which the Company's Offer was communicated to MMVPL. Upon receipt of MMVPL's Counter Offer, the Company shall have the obligation to accept MMVPL's Counter Offer so communicated by MMVPL to the Company.
39. Agreed, ordered and directed that any and all revenue / income which may be generated by the Company from exploiting the rights of Singham, in whatsoever capacity, shall be shared equally between the Company and MMVPL. Reliance Studios and the Company undertake and confirm to this Court that they shall provide to MMVPL:-
a. quarterly reports setting out details of all exploitation rights and business statements regarding income / revenue generated in this regard.
b. complete copies of all agreements (unreadacted) in relation to Singham, within 15 days of their execution; and c. MMVPL's share of revenue / share within 7 (Seven) days of such payment being received by the Company.
6. Mr. Khambata has submitted that upon a reading of clause 33 of the Consent Terms, it is clear that the parties had agreed that 50% of the intellectual property rights including derivative rights in the film titled 'Singham' shall immediately vest absolutely in favour of the Applicant. The words 'derivative rights' in film 7/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc 'Singham' has to be given its literal meaning and would include derivative works emanating from the film 'Singham'. Further, in Clause 34 of the Consent Terms reference to the rights which have already been created in respect of 'Singham' prior to the Consent Minutes of Order as set out in schedule 9 are nothing but the reference to the derivative rights / works created and those were to be excluded. This is also borne out from schedule 9 where the derivative rights / works have been set out. In Clause 35 of the Consent Terms there is an undertaking given by Reliance Studios who has confirmed that apart from the rights which have already been created as detailed in schedule 9 to the Consent Terms, the Reliance Studios and / or its affiliates, subsidiaries and / or assigns have not created any other right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in connection with 'Singham'.
7. Mr. Khambata has thereafter referred to the Clauses 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Consent Terms which he submits are also in relation to the future derivative rights or derivative works for which the parties have specifically agreed to the manner in which financing / funding as well as exploitation and distribution rights of these derivative rights or derivative works is to be exercised by the 8/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc parties to the Consent Terms. Though Mr. Khambata has made a statement that this submission is without prejudice to the contentions of the Applicant with regard to the existing film 'Singham Returns' which was the subject matter of the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 21st October, 2022 and from which the Applicant has filed a Review Petition.
8. Mr. Khambata has submitted that Clause 36 is with regard to the financing / funding the cost of production of the derivative work emanating from the film Singham and which the Applicant may propose to finance / fund to the extend of 50% of the cost of production of such derivative work and which would be on the same terms as may be offered to other third parties, including Reliance Studios and / or Phantom Films Pvt. Ltd. ('Company'). Such offer to finance 50% of the cost of such derivative work was to be considered by Reliance Studios and / or the Company in good faith and accordingly either to decide to accept or decline such proposal.
9. Under Clause 37 of the Consent Terms, the parties had agreed that the Company has the right to license derivative works of Singham or exploitation thereof to a third party, including Rohit 9/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc Shetty Picturez LLP, subject to such third party making payment directly to the Applicant on terms mentioned in the sub clauses of Clause 37.
10. Mr. Khambata has submitted that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the interpretation of Clause 38 of the Consent Terms. According to Mr. Khambata a reading of Clause 38 would make it clear that the exploitation of any 'right' in relation to Singham is nothing but the derivative rights or work and though the word 'derivative' is not used, it is implied as has been implied in Clauses 34 and 35 where similarly the word 'derivative' though not used the same has to read as such in view of the derivative rights or works found in Schedule 9 of the Consent Terms. Thus, if the Company receives any offer for grant of exploitation and distribution rights in Singham for any platform, mode, format or media (known now or discovered in future) from any third party, then the Company shall notify the Applicant regarding such offer in writing setting out the proposed license fee and the license period. In the event the Applicant procures or betters such offer by 10% of the license fee, then the Applicant shall communicate such better offer to the Company within 15 days form the date on which the Company's offer 10/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc was communicated to the Applicant. Upon receipt of the Applicant's counter offer, the Company shall have the obligation to accept the Applicant's counter offer so communicated by the Applicant to the Company.
11. Mr. Khambata has relied upon the decision of this Court in Dirk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahagenco1 where this Court has held that a negative covenant / agreement can even be implied. The agreement with regard to the rights as to the derivative works of the film Singham is implied in Clause 38 and can be enforced.
12. Mr. Khambata has submitted that Clause 39 follows from Clause 38 and provides that all revenue / income which may be generated by the Company from exploiting the rights of 'Singham', in whatsoever capacity, shall be shared equally between the Company and the Applicant.
13. Mr. Khambata has submitted that the prior dispute with regard to the film 'Singham Returns' and its exploitation of the film had arisen during the pendency of the Execution Application 1 (2007) SCC OnLine Bom 211, (2007) 5 Bom CR 207.
11/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 :::
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc which application had been taken out due to the failure on the part of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 failure to comply with the Consent Terms dated 6th December, 2021. The Interim Application had been taken out being Interim Application (L) No.25441 of 2022 and which was considered for ad-interim relief by this Court vide order dated 21st October, 2022. Various submissions were made by the parties and this Court had made it clear that in so far as the film 'Singham 3', the Court was not considering the derivative rights in respect of that film as according to the statement made by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the film 'Singham 3' was no where near production. This Court had also considered the distinction between derivative rights and derivative work and was of the view that the rights to create derivative works were derivative rights. Thus, this Court had prima facie accepted the interpretation placed by the Respondents on these words in relation to film 'Singham Returns' which had already been produced. Accordingly, this Court held that the Applicant has no exploitation rights in relation to the film 'Singham Returns'.
14. Mr. Khambata has submitted that this Court had clarified that as far as the film 'Singham 3' was concerned, this Court 12/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc has not examined whether under Clause 36, the Applicant has any right to produce 'Singham 3' being a 'derivative right' emanating from the film 'Singham' or is entitled to remuneration under Clause 37 (once the film is produced and released), as the same is nowhere near production. Thus, this Court was only concerned with the film 'Singham Returns' which was already produced and that the ad- interim relief refused was restricted to that film.
15. Mr. Khambata has submitted that from the said order dated 21st October, 2022, an Appeal had been filed which was thereafter withdrawn with liberty to file a Review Petition which has been filed and pending before this Court.
16. Mr. Khambata has submitted that there are media articles reporting that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 have already commenced work on the film Singham 3 and shooting is to be commenced in April, 2023. The actors of the subject film have already been finalized and that the actor Ajay Devgan had on 2nd January, 2023 posed on his official social media handle that he had heard the narration of the script. Further, on 10th January, 2023 on the official social media handle of Rohit Shetty, he had stated that 13/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc pre-production of the subject film would commence soon.
17. Mr. Khambata has accordingly submitted that in view of the Consent Terms and in particular Clause 38 thereof, it is imperative that the Respondent Nos.1, 2 or 7 make disclosures with regard to any license, exploitation and / or production of the subject film 'Singham3' including derivative works in connection with or emanating from 'Singham' or sequels, prequels, spin-offs thereof, for any platform, mode, format or media by giving full and complete details. He has further submitted that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 are required to be restrained from granting or creating exploitation rights in respect of the film 'Singham' including in derivative works in connection with or emanating from the said film for any platform, mode, format or media to any party without granting the Applicant the right to make a counter offer as provided in Clause 38 of the Consent Terms dated 6th December, 2021.
18. Mr. J.P. Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has made counter submissions. However, at the outset he has stated on instructions that the subject film 'Singham3' is no where near production nor has there be any exploitation of the 14/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc subject film to date. Singham 3 is still in the first stage where the director / writer is still drafting the script. The statement is accepted.
19. Mr. Sen has submitted that the interpretation placed by Mr. Khambata on the aforementioned clauses of the Consent Terms is erroneous. He has submitted that this Court by the ad-interim order dated 21st October, 2022 had interpreted Clause 38 of the Consent Terms and had categorically held that Clause 38 only applies to the film 'Singham' and not the 'derivative work' of 'Singham' viz. 'Singham Returns'. This Court in the said order held that there is a clear distinction between a derivative work and a derivative right. A right to create a derivative work is a derivative right. He has submitted that unlike in Clause 36 and 37 which expressly used the words 'derivative works' in connection with or emanating from 'Singham', Clause 38, makes no mention of 'derivative works', thus only contemplating exploitation of any right in relation to the film, 'Singham' and restricted to the film 'Singham'. He has submitted that Clause 37 expressly contemplates that in the event, the right to license derivative works of the film 'Singham' or exploitation thereof to a third party, the third party shall make payment directly to the Applicant as provided under the sub-clauses 15/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc to Clause 37. Further, in Clause 36, the Applicant may propose to finance / fund 50% of the cost of production of such derivative work on same terms as may be offered to third parties and it is then for Reliance Studios and / or the Company to consider such offer in good faith and decide to accept or deny such proposal. He has submitted that Clause 33 cannot be read to include derivative works of the film 'Singham'. All exploitation rights of the film 'Singham' vesting with Respondent No.2.
20. There have been submissions with regard to knowledge of the Applicant as to the charge created in favour of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) on the films. According to Mr. Sen the Applicant had knowledge as they were the promoters of the Respondent No.2 Company and had a 12.5% shareholding in Respondent No.2 and party to the Resolution authorising the Deed of Hypothecation to be executed in favour of the Bank. However, it is not necessary to go into this dispute while deciding the present ad- interim relief application.
21. Having considered the submissions on the Application for ad-interim relief as well as to the rival interpretation 16/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc of Clause 38 of the Consent Terms, in my prima facie view Clause 38 would cover the subject film Singham 3 as being a derivative work of the film Singham. The words exploiting any right in the film 'Singham' would include the exploitation of derivative works such as Singham 3.
22. The film titled 'Singham' includes the 'derivative rights' in the film as per the agreement between the parties in Clause 33 of the Consent Terms. The parties had agreed that 50% of the intellectual property rights including derivative rights in the film titled 'Singham' and which is referred to as 'Singham' in the said Clause shall immediately vests absolutely in the Applicant. Though all exploitation rights in the film Singham continued to remain exclusively with Respondent No.2 - the Company, Clause 38 provided for an opportunity to the Applicant to better any offer received by the Company for exploitation of such rights in the film. Thus, in Clause 38, where the words used are "by exploiting any rights in relation to Singham", this would necessarily imply the derivative rights / works in relation to the film 'Singham' and exploitation of which is contemplated. In Clauses 34 and 35 of the Consent Terms though the word 'derivative' has not been used, the 'rights' which have been 17/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc created in respect of 'Singham' prior to the Consent Terms as set out in Schedule 9, necessarily implies 'derivative rights / works'. This is apparent from Schedule 9 thereof which sets out such derivative rights / works. Thus, in my prima facie view, Clause 38 includes exploitation of derivatives rights / works in relation to 'Singham', which would include the subject film 'Singham 3'.
23. In view thereof, under the said Clause 38 the Applicant is to be notified by Respondent No.2 regarding any offer in writing from any third party for exploitation and distribution rights in 'Singham' for any platform, mode, format or media setting out the proposed license fee and license period. The Applicant has a right to procure or better such offer by 10% of the license fee and which shall then be communicated to Company within 15 days from the date on which the Company's Offer is so communicated to the Applicant. Upon receipt of the Applicant's counter offer, the Company shall have the obligation to accept the Applicant's counter offer so communicated by the Applicant to the Company.
24. This interpretation of Clause 38 would be in line with the other Clauses in the Consent Terms namely Clauses 36 and 18/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc 37 which talk of derivative work and for the Applicant who may propose to finance / fund 50% of the cost of production of such derivative work on the same terms as may be offered to third parties, including to Reliance Studios and / or the Company. Such offer would then be considered by Reliance Studios and / or the Company in good faith and accordingly either they may decide to accept or decline such proposal. This would also in line with Clause 37 of the Consent Terms where the right to license derivative work of the film 'Singham' or exploitation thereof has been conferred to a third party and in that case third party is to make payment directly to the Applicant, in accordance with the terms mentioned in the sub-clauses of Clause 37. Clause 39 also contemplates sharing of revenue / income generated by the Company from exploiting the derivative rights of Singham, which shall be shared equally between the Company and Applicant. Thus, in my prima facie view, the interpretation placed by the Applicant requires to be accepted. The decision of this Court in Dirk India (Supra) on negative covenants / agreements being implied is applicable to the derivative works agreement read in Clause 38.
25. In view of the statement made by Mr. Sen that the 19/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc subject film 'Singham3' is no where near production, nor exploitation rights have been created in respect of the subject film, which sttement has been accepted, it is not necessary at this stage to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (b), (c) and (d). However, requisite disclosures in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the Interim Application is required to be made by Respondent Nos.1, 2 or
7.
26. Further, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 shall communicate in writing to the Applicant / Plaintiff two weeks prior to exploiting any rights in respect of the subject film 'Singham' including any derivative works in connection with or emanating from Singham including Singham 3 for any platform, mode, format or media. There is no dispute that the Applicant has a right to propose / offer to finance / fund 50% of the cost of production of such derivative work on the same terms as offered to other third parties, including to Reliance Studios and the Company under Clause 36 of the Consent Terms dated 6th December, 2021 and it is for them to either consider such offer, in good faith and accordingly decide to accept or decline such offer.
20/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 14/02/2023 11-ial-25441-2022.doc
27. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 shall file their Affidavit of disclosure within a period of three weeks from the date of this Order. The Applicant / Plaintiff is at liberty to file Affidavit in Rejoinder thereto within a period of one week thereafter.
28. Interim Application shall be placed for further ad- interim relief on 27th February, 2022. Liberty to the parties to apply for an earlier date.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] 21/21 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 04:22:50 :::