Summary
A film licensee challenged appellate reversal of interim protection against termination and competing exploitation of licensed rights. Substantial payments had been made, earlier payments followed invoices, and the disputed balance had been deposited under the Single Judge’s order. The Court found the interim discretion reasonably exercised and restored the injunction, including against the later licensee. Contract interpretation and final rights remained for trial, which the Court requested be expedited, preferably within one year.
Issues
- Whether the Single Judge’s interim injunction warranted appellate interference.
- Whether the payment history and disputed invoicing obligation supported temporary protection.
- Whether the later licensee was also subject to the injunction and what remained for trial.
Held
- The final settlement governed the live payment dispute. Substantial payments had been made, the parties’ previous practice involved invoices preceding payment, and the disputed balance was deposited in court. Those circumstances supported the Single Judge’s prima facie assessment and balance of convenience. (¶¶ 10, 12-16, 19, 21)
- Appellate review of discretionary interim relief is confined by principle. A reasonably possible judicial assessment should not be replaced merely because the appellate court prefers another view; arbitrariness, caprice, perversity or disregard of settled principles must justify interference. The necessary basis was absent here. (¶¶ 17-18, 21)
- The Court left final construction of the settlement, including whether invoices were a condition precedent to payment, to the suit. Its interim assessment did not finally determine breach, termination validity or contractual entitlement. (¶¶ 13, 16, 21)
- The second respondent entered the competing licence arrangement after the suit began and with awareness of the pending dispute. In these circumstances it was also governed by the restored injunction. (¶ 19)
- Both sets of film-licensing appeals were governed by the order. The Division Bench decision was set aside, the Single Judge’s injunction restored and expeditious trial requested, preferably within one year, uninfluenced by prior interim observations and without unnecessary adjournments. (¶ 20-22)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. The Division Bench order was set aside and the Single Judge’s injunction restored in both sets of appeals. Expeditious trial, preferably within one year, was requested, with final merits left open.