Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fii in Ref: Case No. 25/2010, 41/2010, ... vs .£33 U?" £~':S5=..Ig1"M'1E':Nt 0'? ... on 16 February, 2012Matching Fragments
2.1.20 The informant in its i'Lirti'ier repiy dated l7.D5.201Ciaiso brougiwt out that it had fiied a writ petition being Writ Petition {Civil} N0.£i2?.7 ef 2010 before the Hen'bie High Cciurt of De-i'ni on 'i5.6.ZE_£'J1O tar interim reiief tiii the matter
- ~ »-, »~ -' L.» =- 4, ""-- -x-».-- 'hr 'L .=*' '.-~ "
was ii-3-riff} L.-5,! tiie LDii;iiii'.xai<.31'.. Tare rirsii in a.=ter riearirrg the. ii'=.ie:'marit"s -iousiseis, Q3-3556.-Ci fi:i":«.? er">er that "t , .. ,... .-..... .""..., '.¢«'.s. .-. ','_'.' """ ,".', 1+ ' :.<§| i'.»_'».» ' L. , .. 4'... etspieacii the L.f.iii'i:T':i3;>ii_)i": .i.L>.Ci'b.,iC;.i.: useif «er iistiiag -fin' tue case mi i":-C-E:E1i"ii'ig oi interir*ri appiicatiori. 'i' we irriermant aise bi'DLigi"ii; out" the §'r'iii<:>v ' .. ....J.... L... .....,...... '.... 1.- ......'... .....-J .,.... uiutzr LU v,.n::»:> im m'L'c:i rm uiuci, ""~. 2 .E........,.'-- i"'\:
5 it was aiso aiieged that i<IFffC had a so issued circuiar dated O"/'.OE'».;ZO'3_O in iocai mavvzgaapers in i<amai:ai<a, tailing Li}?-Uh ail distribui:ors, p'rodu~::ers and
1)
F7
not to support the Big Cinema and .reiai;eci group =:csm;3a.ni£=s
Big Cin=f::ma in' ma': pr:::viciia'ig and mi': i<.am*;a
of which thr-3 tatie h::>%de1'wats the Eh'f~:3t'maht. The -"autiah East ihcludsmi the Le name of the h'1t'o:'m=ht aim. "z"n€: Shformaht é;*~.";:'r';ec3"':;.:t~'-'hr "T , I.-'.010 the ass<:>c1at'=«:.>n e:ht:i~;>:2'2:"wr \_| C? as ted pt:-3 m be r 3- cautitm 135?. caiiihg L3§3C-F1 the .
been issued and the grounds for the Enciusiah of the name of the informant in the caution iist.
2.1.74 The informant. further :::-aiied upon the associatior: te expiain the urgency behind the issuance of the caution iist by the asscsciatioh when the assoiziaticm was aware that the in'h:»:'rriant's film "We Are i7amiiy" was scheduled for reiease on September 3, 2{.i1U. However, as on date 01' fiiing the ienfo:'maiticm,. the infc:»rmant did not receive a repiy to the said ietter dated September' 3, 201.0. However, since the fiim was. reieased, the matter was therefore net pursued.
5," ,,='C-...:i... ,., ;.,.' .41....
am »...«t..n.=iL:s,ii..ui: ii: i. .2
-A .. .~ ._.;=._. _, 1,... .. x. , .
U":C:r3.Ci iL:.i.i'}-' :€:'.:..€:x~'_-3'3 in L _ first aired eh "«::eicn's"" -
pubiished the said caution iist in View ofjthis 50 caiied breach of condition, ;g_ngi:;ei3g.:he _i"aci:._ti1a:_i' .t.i.1is was an eereemeent beeti/iieen the inkwmant and K?3§Ji.,ii'C'i'iEii"ii_.i'. that was submitted to the iassociation and to W-mch we assoeiatien was not a party.
2.1.77 According to the iniormarit, cause of action for breach of the Agreement, and consequent iosses, if any,"wi1i«:h wouici have' been suffered an accoimt oi "eariy" sateiiite emieitatien of the Him, wouici have been suffered by iiapurchanti, and not by the aseeciatien. iéapurchand had not flied cenipiairwts and therefore under no circtzmstances did the assrsicziatien have any iocus stand': to raise any ciaims or penalties against the ¥ni'"c::rmant er intervene in the mettei'. The im'c::i'm:-mt caiied upon the association to withdraw the said caution iist by their ietter dated October 4, 2010. No repiy, however, was received ta the ietter til! the date of fiiing the informatiion. 2.1.78 ,z'--\«:cordii"ig to the informant, the instant ini'C»i*mation had been fiieci ta restrain the associa'=:i-an i"r::>n". oi3§.?:m-:2'-ring or interfering with release ».