| Case ID |
0c09a225-64ca-467e-9ac5-779ebee5388f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No.1048 and C.M.A. Nos.7345, 7346 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 04, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 22, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' applications, directing the defendants Nos.1 and 2 to furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the claimed amount of Rs.38,380,561/- with the court-appointed Nazir. This surety is to be invested in profit-bearing government schemes until further orders. The interim order dated 27.08.2020 has been vacated, and the defendants are now free to release the film 'Ishrat Baji Made in China' at their discretion. Additionally, the court has ordered the defendants to audit the project's accounts, finances, and expenses through a certified Chartered Accountant and submit the report to the court. They are also required to provide fortnightly revenue statements as stipulated in the agreement dated 11.06.2018. The final judgment on profit disbursements will occur after evidence recording, ensuring a fair arrangement. This decision underscores the court's authority to tailor relief based on the case's specific facts and circumstances. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of AUM Media Publisher LLC versus Mohib Mirza and others, the Sindh High Court delivered a pivotal decision on June 4, 2021. The case centered around a dispute arising from a production framework agreement dated June 11, 2018, for the creation of the Urdu feature film 'Ishrat Baji Made in China.' Under this agreement, AUM Media Publisher LLC, acting as the investor, pledged a total investment of Rs.60,000,000/- to be disbursed in installments as per the agreed schedule, while Mohib Mirza and his associates were designated as producers responsible for managing the film's production.
The core contention of the plaintiffs, AUM Media Publisher LLC, was that the defendants breached the agreement by failing to adhere to financial commitments, unauthorized exclusion of the plaintiffs from promotional materials, and the involvement of an unauthorized third party, EK Alif Film, which was purportedly involved in the project's financing without mutual consent. The plaintiffs sought injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, to halt the distribution and exhibition of the film until the breaches were rectified.
Defendants, led by Mohib Mirza, countered by alleging that the plaintiffs defaulted on their payment obligations, thereby causing significant delays and increased costs in the film's production. They contended that the plaintiffs failed to release payments as per the Schedule 2 disbursement mechanism outlined in the agreement, citing payments made unevenly and withholding necessary funds crucial for the project's timely completion. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs' actions left them no choice but to seek alternative investors, leading to the involvement of EK Alif Film, which they claimed was in line with the contractual provisions allowing for third-party investments with mutual consent.
The court meticulously examined the contractual clauses, particularly focusing on Sections 21 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which delineate the conditions under which injunctions can be granted. The Sindh High Court, under the judicial leadership of Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, determined that the plaintiffs could not enforce specific performance of the contract because the nature of the agreement was such that monetary compensation was deemed an adequate remedy for the alleged breaches. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to prevent the defendants from proceeding with the film's release, especially in light of the defendants' proactive steps to mitigate production delays by securing additional investments.
In a decisive ruling, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' injunction applications, stating that the agreements were not specifically enforceable and that monetary relief was appropriate. The defendants were instructed to provide a solvent surety amounting to Rs.38,380,561/- to a court-appointed Nazir, which was to be invested in government-approved profit-bearing schemes. Additionally, the court vacated the interim order that had previously restrained the defendants from releasing the film, thereby allowing the production to proceed unhindered.
The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the legal principles governing specific performance and injunctions. It highlighted that while contracts are binding, the enforceability of particular clauses depends on their nature and the adequacy of alternative remedies, such as monetary compensation. The decision serves as a pertinent reference for similar contractual disputes within the entertainment industry, emphasizing the balance courts must maintain between contractual fidelity and equitable relief.
This case also sheds light on the legal intricacies involved in financing film productions, particularly the implications of third-party investments and the essentiality of mutual consent in altering investment structures. The court's emphasis on proper financial management and adherence to agreed-upon schedules illustrates the judiciary's role in ensuring fair play and contractual integrity within commercial agreements. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
AUM Media Publisher LLC,
Mohib Mirza,
EK Alif Film
|
| Judges |
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Ayan M. Memon,
Abdul Sattar Pirzada,
Mamoon Chaudhry,
Yasir Bajwa,
Syed Waqar Haider Zaidi
|
| Petitioners |
AUM MEDIA PUBLISHER, LLC THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ANOTHERS
|
| Respondents |
MOHIB MIRZA AND 2 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 614,
2022 CLC 585
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 1998 Kar. 277,
1993 CLC 2497,
1980 SCMR 588,
PLD 1983 Kar. 387,
1979 CLC 570,
2014 CLD 1583,
PLD 1981 Kar. 720,
(1996) 1 CALLT 214 HC India,
PLD 1973 SC 39,
2012 CLD 1225,
PLD 1991 Lah. 174,
1995 SCMR 1431,
2002 CLD 218,
PLD 2006 Kar. 523,
PLD 1982 Kar. 76,
Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 2010 CLC 1843,
Zawar Petroleum v. O.G.D.C 2003 YLR 1450,
Nadeem Ghani v. UBL 2001 CLC 1904,
District Council Gujrat v. Iftikhar Ahmed 1988 MLD 1461,
Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Messrs Hassan Associates 2010 MLD 800,
Bank Alfalah Limited v. Neu Multiplex and Entertainment Square Company 2015 YLR 214,
Yusuf Hussain Shirazi v. Lt. Col. Muhammad Aslam Shaikh PLD 1966 (W.) Karachi 472 ref,
Amina Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
12,
21,
42,
56,
1,
2
|