In an interim application in a commercial IP suit filed before the Bombay High Court against Swambhu Media Network Private Limited, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar refused to grant relief to the applicants noting that there had been a suppression of facts as well as important documents.
The plaintiffs relied on a Co-Production Agreement dated 21-01-2026, specifically highlighting Clauses 4.1 and 4.2. It was submitted that the agreement and other material on record clearly demonstrated that the plaintiffs had rights in the cinematograph film titled “Hanuman Ansh” along with defendants 2 and 3. Clause 4.1 specified that defendants 2 and 3 along with plaintiffs 1, and Plaintiff No. 2 were joint first owners with equal, worldwide, and perpetual rights, title, and interest in the film, its underlying works, copyright, neighboring rights, and exploitation/distribution rights, including any derivative works.
It was stated that Clause 4.2 mandated that exploitation and commercial utilization required mutual consultation and that no party could independently authorize exploitation without the prior written consent of all other parties. The applicants contended that defendants 2 and 3 executed an agreement in favor of defendant 1 without taking their written consent.
The defendants argued that important documents and statements were not disclosed in the plaint. Relying on the affidavit-in-reply, the defendants stated that due to the plaintiffs’ frequent travel and prolonged absence from the country, it was difficult for them to participate in day-to-day, time-sensitive decisions. It was submitted that the parties arrived at a practical understanding and working mechanism in writing where defendants 2 and 3 would control all executive decisions while the plaintiffs retained economic and proprietary interests as 25% shareholders and co-owners.
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 voluntarily resigned from the office of Additional Director of defendant 1 due to personal reasons and professional commitments. Request letters handed over at the board meeting explicitly requested that defendants 2 and 3 continue to be responsible for all executive decisions of Swambhu Media Network.
The Court found that, prima facie, vital and material documents were suppressed in the plaint, including the fact that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had resigned from the directorship of Swambhu Media Network. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38, which established that a person who does not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits or receive relief.
The Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any ad-interim relief due to the clear suppression of material documents. However, it was clarified that the plaintiffs’ rights as set out in the affidavit-in-reply of defendants 2 and 3, were not affected. The defendants were directed to file additional affidavits, if necessary, within four weeks.
The matter was ordered to stand over to 06-10-2026.
