Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)
M/S. International Film Distributors vs Shri Rishi Raj on 23 October, 2008 cites

Maganlal Savani & Another vs Rupam Pictures (P) Ltd. & Others on 20 June, 2000

The Division Bench, however, directed the Plaintiff to the suit to maintain accounts in respect of the exploitation of the films. The same view of the Learned Single Judge has been reiterated in a judgment of T.K. Chadrashekhara Das,J. dated 20th June 2000 in Maganlal Savani v. Rupam Pictures (P) Ltd. (Notice of Motion 1481 of 2000 in Suit 1806 of 2000.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - T K Das - Full Document

M/S. Video Master & Another vs M/S. Nishi Productions & Others on 21 October, 1997

19. The attention of the court has also been drawn towards the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Video Master vs. Nishi Productions 1998 PTC (18) 117. The Bombay High Court referred to the differences and clauses/species of the communication and held that theatrical rights include the right to exhibit the cinematograph film in theatres, terrestrial rights is the right to exhibit the film on Doordarshan and satellite FAO (OS) No.81/2002 Page 23 of 26 broadcasting rights is the right to exhibit/communicate the film by satellite signals to public with or without cable and through the satellite medium. While the cable TV right is right to exhibit a film by cable originated programme.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - A Y Sakhare - Full Document

P.M. Diesel Ltd. vs Patel Field Marshall Industries on 20 August, 2008

"The jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendant and it is the allegation made in the plaint which decide the forum as was held in the case of P.M.Diesel Ltd vs. Patel Field Marshal, reported in AIR 1998 Delhi 225. In view of the nature of statement made in the plaint read with the documents placed on record, I am of prima FAO (OS) No.81/2002 Page 8 of 26 facie opinion that this Hon‟ble court has the jurisdiction to try this suit. This, however, is my tentative view at this stage only for the purpose of deciding of issue of grant of interim injunction. The right, which is claimed by the plaintiff pursuant to agreement with the Official Assignee dated 20 th December 2000 could be prima facie established by the plaintiff in Delhi. The plaintiff has also claimed injunction regarding threatened breach of its rights at Delhi and, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that this Hon‟ble court does not have the territorial jurisdiction."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 Next