This appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court pursuing to the order passed by the High Court of Hyderabad. The then plaintiff mentioned herein as the appellant was involved in the business of producing, exhibiting and distributing the cinematographic films. Four persons were nominated by the 4th Defendant therein for assigning the distribution right or the satellite broadcasting right for 16 Hindi films for so and about the period of 9 years from the date assigning this assignment was executed by the execution of six different assignment deeds between the plaintiff and the defendant. The assignment deeds were signed on the 23rd of December, 1994. The plaintiff herein found out about the suit against the defendant a year later after the assignment deed was signed and executed in the year 1995. The Suit against the defendant was filed by the company named M/s Asia Vision against the defendant wherein the suit was filed for the purpose to sought relief against the same assignment that was granted to the then plaintiff for such 16 Hindi films with the same broadcasting rights, the suit was filed had no relief given or the suit was yet to be concluded in the Bombay, small cause court. The suit filed against the appellant herein was notarized of the forged document in the Bombay small cause court. One D. Ramesh Babu, the director of the first company pursuing such fraud, filed a complaint against the company with the police at the police station located at the Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The complaint was made with the statement with the relief sought was against fraudulent misconduct by the company by way of forging the documents.
The 3rd defendant herein filed the complaints against the person responsible for causing him the loss by way of forgery and fraudulently guiding to him to execute a deed, which in the above matter has no clear title. The 3rd defendant filed the complaint with the police station against the defendants and plaintiff in the above matter in Mumbai. There were several criminal proceedings was filed by the person against all the persons responsible in many different places in order to sought relief against such forgery. However, at the peril of the authority of all other complaints were dismissed by way rationale that the complaint was not appropriate and could not sustain, thus subsiding the controversy. The Judiciary was involved after the act of issuing a public notice by one of the party to matter in the magazine on the date 27/09/2003, whereby a legal notice was issued by the opposing party as a reply to the public notice by the party.
- Whether the assignment deed had any legality?
- Whether the second assignment has right over the first disputed right?
- Whether the reason for default valid to dismiss the complaints?
- Whether the order passed by the High Court allowing plaintiffs appeal valid?
The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel representing the parties to the dispute at length and after considering the above facts, it was stated the plaintiff herein has signed and executed the assignment deed whereby the rights have transferred from one person to other though for a specific period but any such transfer in the eye of law is de facto, and there cannot be any condition precedent without prior intimation. The Trail court where the facts were mentioned about the assignment deed between the parties to this dispute made the finding solely on the basis of the agreement signed on 23/12/1994. The defendant no.4 here nominated the defendant no. 5 to 8 for assignment of such broadcasting right by the plaintiff for a period of 9 years, where after such is executed it is clear that the plaintiff herein has parted from his right for broadcasting such 16 Hindi films for the above mentioned period. The above-mentioned dispute between the defendants with respect to the suit filed by the other defendant provides no right to the plaintiff to claim any right with regards to such broadcasting of the films. The dispute between the defendant was subsided a long back in the year 1995 when such suit was taken aback by the defendant no.3. The entire suit filed by the party in 2003 when the rights assigned was matured and a suit that was based on some default that took place in the year 1994 and such default was acknowledged by the defendant in the year 1995 with the rationale any person who fails to knock the door of law for his right, means that either the person has no claims, or there’s no such substantial failure to effect the party, so the suit is barred by the limitation.
The Honorable Supreme Court agrees and acknowledges that the above matter lacks merit as pleaded by the parties. The Supreme Court further appreciates the findings of the Honorable High Court of Hyderabad and states that appreciation of law has correctly funded and applied, thereby honouring the precedents in the matter above. The appeal may not find any other destiny but the dismissal. The Trial Court did find an appreciating result, but the consideration was given to some facts in isolation, and so the matter has rightly being reconsidered. The Honorable Supreme Court finds that the above appeals that not on the rationale of acceptance and further culminates into dismissal. The Supreme dismisses the matter and appeal therein, and all the other appeal with regards to the above matter stands dismissed accordingly.