Ivy Entertainment Private Limited Vs. HR Pictures
Date: March 27, 2025
Case No: (COMM) 264/2025
Court: High Court of Delhi
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Introduction
In the bustling world of Indian cinema, where creativity meets commerce, the High Court of Delhi’s judgment on March 27, 2025, in the case of Ivy Entertainment Private Limited versus HR Pictures stands as a testament to the delicate balance between contractual obligations and commercial imperatives.
This dispute, revolving around the Tamil film “Veera Deera Sooran”, pits a plaintiff seeking to protect its assigned rights against a defendant eager to capitalize on a theatrical release.
Detailed Factual Background
The saga begins with a Film Assignment Agreement dated June 19, 2024, between the plaintiff and the defendant. The agreement assigned Ivy Entertainment exclusive rights to the film in Hindi and North Indian languages, including theatrical, digital, and online rights, for Rs. 51 crores.
Ivy Entertainment paid Rs. 44 crores, leaving Rs. 7 crores contingent on delivery of specific materials. The agreement required delivery of materials 14 days before the release, which was announced unilaterally by HR Pictures for March 27, 2025.
Detailed Procedural Background
Ivy filed CS(COMM) 264/2025 and I.A. 7657/2025 seeking injunction against the release, citing breach of agreement. Initial hearings were delayed; settlement talks failed, and both parties eventually argued the matter on March 26, 2025.
Issues Involved
The case turned on two main issues:
- Whether HR Pictures breached the agreement by not delivering materials 14 days in advance and by fixing a release date without written consent.
- Whether Ivy met the conditions for an interim injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Submissions of the Parties
Ivy Entertainment
Ivy argued breach of key articles (1.6.1.3, 1.9, 1.12, 1.24), as materials were delivered only on March 22, 2025. It emphasized the essence of timely delivery, sought specific performance and injunctive relief, and offered to deposit Rs. 7 crores within 24 hours.
HR Pictures
HR Pictures alleged Ivy failed to raise timely objections and concealed facts. They emphasized the film’s South Indian rights, 15,000 pre-sold tickets, and that the release date was within the allowed period (Article 1.23). They claimed damages could suffice.
Judgments Cited
By Ivy Entertainment
- Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. v. Shatrughan Kumar (2023): Specific performance upheld for similar rights issues.
- Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (2023): Damages not an adequate alternative to specific performance.
By HR Pictures
- Warner Bros. v. Harinder Kohli (2009): No injunction due to plaintiff delay.
- Reliance Big Entertainment v. Percept (2009): Refusal of injunction where the plaintiff rescinded, not enforced.
- Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1993): Defined conditions for granting interim injunction.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
The court found that HR Pictures breached material terms of the contract by not delivering materials in time. Justice Arora emphasized that Ivy’s right to written approval was violated. The obligation was absolute, and the court dismissed HR Pictures’ tentative-date argument and rejected the February email as proof of consent.
Applying the Dalpat Kumar trinity test, the court held that Ivy had:
- A prima facie case
- Balance of convenience in its favor
- Irreparable injury due to loss of negotiation leverage for digital rights
Final Decision
On March 27, 2025, the court granted an injunction restraining release for four weeks, conditional upon Ivy depositing Rs. 7 crores within 24 hours. HR Pictures was ordered to deliver all materials within 48 hours, under court oversight. Mediation was waived due to urgency.
Legal Principle Established
The court reinforced that:
- Time-bound delivery clauses are enforceable when deemed essential.
- Unilateral release dates without consent violate contractual rights.
- Injunctive relief may be granted where damages are not an adequate remedy.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
