The Bombay high court has dismissed an interim injunction application filed by production company Avanika Films LLP against actor Abhay Verma in a contractual dispute related to his lead role in its Prem Keetanu. The order, delivered by Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar on September 15, allows Abhay (actor of Munjya) to pursue other professional engagements during the contentious period.
Avanika Films approached the court seeking to enforce a negative covenant under the Artiste agreement dated June 15. As per the agreement, Abhay Verma had given his dates from September 5 to November 20 to Avanika Films. The company alleged that the actor unilaterally terminated the agreement on July 12, citing prior professional commitments. The company said, the actor’s actions amounted to breach of contract, and sought an interim injunction to restrain him from working on any other project during the agreed period. Avanika Films claimed damages of Rs. 12 crore.
Senior counsel Dr. Birendra Saraf along with Rashmin Khandekar and Anand Mohan contended that under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the negative covenant — requiring exclusivity — was binding and could be enforced independent of specific performance.
Defending Abhay Verma, advocate Rohan Caama, assisted by Sunil Zalmi, submitted that the relief sought was essentially an attempt to enforce personal service obligations, which were not maintainable under Indian law. The defence further stated that Abhay had prior scheduling conflicts which had been communicated to the production house. Abhay emphasised that any financial loss suffered by the company could be adequately compensated.
Justice Khubalkar identified that the heart of the dispute lay in clause 2.2.2 of the Artiste agreement, which mandated Verma’s exclusive availability for the film during the specified shooting period. The court also examined clauses 11.1 and 11.4, which dealt with breach remedies and liquidated damages for wilful non-performance. The court noted that the plaintiff had not sought specific performance of the agreement. Instead, the interim injunction was effectively a final relief being sought at an interlocutory stage, which was legally impermissible.
After reviewing the submissions, the court held that Avanika Films had not demonstrated the essential criteria for interim relief. The balance of convenience, therefore, did not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Justice Khubalkar ruled that enforcing the negative covenant would, in effect, compel personal service, which was not permissible. Interim injunction was, therefore, not granted to the plaintiff.
