Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10 When one comes to the rights in specie claimed by the Plaintiff against Defendant Nos.1 to 3 particularly in respect of the films, which are the subject matter of dispute in the present suit, the Plaintiff's case encounters various difficulties. In the first place, the agreements including the term sheet of Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. and Defendant No.6 and 7, the deal terms between Defendant Nos.1 and 5, the confirmation letter between Defendant Nos.1 and 6, etc. all precede the agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 3. All these prior agreements have restrictive covenants so far as creation of third party rights by Defendant No.1 is concerned. Though learned Counsel for the Plaintiff impugns each of these prior transactions on the ground that these were created after the agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and pre-dated with a view to defeat those agreements, there is no overwhelming prima facie case for appointment of a Court Receiver or even good prima facie case for grant of injunctive reliefs that these are either fabricated or backdated. Monies have been actually advanced under these documents. Merely because some of these documents have been referred to in the later correspondence between the parties or no inspection was granted to the Plaintiff's advocates or for want of reference to these documents in the agreements executed subsequently, they cannot be termed as fabricated or backdated sat nmcd 1502-2018.doc with any assurance even from a prima facie stand point. In other words, it is doubtful if by reason of the documents between Defendant No.1, on the one hand, and Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6, on the other, and the failure of Defendant No.1 to comply with its commitments thereunder, Defendant No.1 had any authority to deal with the Plaintiff or create any rights in its favour unilaterally and without reference to Defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7.