//
you're reading...
legal issues

copy rights = M/s. Vijaya Production Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Producer”) produced 15 Telugu films. By an agreement dated 28.9.1987, the Producer granted the sole and exclusive video rights of the films to M/s. Jyothi Video for a period of seven years. During the currency of that agreement, the Producer gifted the films to M/s. Nagireddy Charities (respondent No.3) represented by its Managing Trustee, Shri B. Nagireddy. Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No.2- M/s. Vijaya Pictures whereby the rights of theatrical and non-theatrical distribution, exhibition and exploitation including video and TV rights were given to respondent No.2 for the areas of Andhra and Nizam for a period of 20 years commencing from 1.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. By another agreement dated 25.6.1990 (Exhibit A-4) the term of agreement dated 10.1.1975 was extended by 70 years with effect from 1.1.1995. The relevant portions of that agreement are extracted below: “Whereas the Lessors are the absolute owners in possession of the negatives, holding the entire rights for the Indian Union of the Telugu Talkie pictures produced by M/s Vijaya productions Private Ltd., as specified hereunder, the rights of which have been assigned absolutely by way of gift by the said Vijaya Productions Private Ltd., in favour of the Lessors. Whereas the Lessors have already granted to the Lessees, the exclusive lease rights of exploitation of their several Black and White and Colour pictures for the territory of Andhra and Nizam by way of agreement of lease dated 10.1.1975 for a

Gundamma Katha

Image via Wikipedia

 NON-REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.6438 OF 2005

M/s. Divya Exports ... Appellant

 Versus

M/s. Shalimar Video Company

and others ... Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single 

Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the appeal 

filed by respondent No.1 and decreed the suit filed by the said respondent 

for grant of a declaration that it is having exclusive worldwide video rights 

of VCD/DVD and other formats of video rights in respect of 15 Telugu films 

for which it had entered into an agreement dated 27.8.2001 with M. 

Srinivasa Rao and also for restraining the appellant and respondent Nos.2 

and 3 from producing or selling VCDs/DVDs or any other video format of 

those films in any form of exploitation. 

 2

2. M/s. Vijaya Production Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the 

Producer") produced 15 Telugu films. By an agreement dated 28.9.1987, 

the Producer granted the sole and exclusive video rights of the films to M/s. 

Jyothi Video for a period of seven years. During the currency of that 

agreement, the Producer gifted the films to M/s. Nagireddy Charities 

(respondent No.3) represented by its Managing Trustee, Shri B. Nagireddy. 

Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No.2-

M/s. Vijaya Pictures whereby the rights of theatrical and non-theatrical 

distribution, exhibition and exploitation including video and TV rights were 

given to respondent No.2 for the areas of Andhra and Nizam for a period of 

20 years commencing from 1.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. By 

another agreement dated 25.6.1990 (Exhibit A-4) the term of agreement 

dated 10.1.1975 was extended by 70 years with effect from 1.1.1995. The 

relevant portions of that agreement are extracted below:

 "Whereas the Lessors are the absolute owners in possession of 

 the negatives, holding the entire rights for the Indian Union of 

 the Telugu Talkie pictures produced by M/s Vijaya productions 

 Private Ltd., as specified hereunder, the rights of which have 

 been assigned absolutely by way of gift by the said Vijaya 

 Productions Private Ltd., in favour of the Lessors.

 Whereas the Lessors have already granted to the Lessees, the 

 exclusive lease rights of exploitation of their several Black and 

 White and Colour pictures for the territory of Andhra and 

 Nizam by way of agreement of lease dated 10.1.1975 for a 

 3

period of 20 years from 1st of January, 1975. Whereas the 

Lesees have approached the Lessors to grant unto them the 

exclusive lease rights of Theatrical and Non-theatrical 

distribution, exhibition and exploitations of the several pictures 

by way of lease, in respect of the areas of Andhra and Nizam as 

known in the Film Trade, for a further period of 70 (seventy) 

years from the date of expiry of the present lease agreement i.e. 

from 1st January 1995 and to transfer complete pictures 

negatives in favour of the Lesees herein. 

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-

1. The Lessors hereby grant us the Lessees as the rights of 

Theatrical and Non-Theatrical distribution, exhibition and 

exploitation by way of lease of the following Black and White 

Telugu Pictures produced by M/s Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. 

Madras 600 020 including the video and T.V. Rights thereof

1. Shavukaru

2. Pathala Bhairavi

3. Pellichehi Choodu

4. Chandraharam

5. Missamma

6. Maya Bazar

7. Appuchesi Pappukudu

8. Jagadekaveerunikatha

9. Gundamma Katha

10. C.I.D.

12. Umachandi Gowrishankula Katha

13. Rechukka Pagatichukka

for the Areas of Andhra and Nizam, and to appropriate to 

themselves the proceeds earned by them on the said pictures by 

such exploitation for a period of 70 (seventy) years from 1st 

January 1995.

4. The Lessees shall have the power to assign this agreement 

either in part and/or whole to third parties at their discretion, 

without in any manner affecting the rights of the Lessors under 

this agreement.

 4

 5. It is agreed that the Lessors shall not lease out, sell or exhibit 

 the pictures in the territories for which the rights of exploitation 

 are herein be granted, till the expiry of the agreement. The 

 Lessees also shall not exhibit the pictures in any station outside 

 the territory leased herein.

 7. It is understood between the parties herein that this 

 agreement is without prejudice to the 16mm rights; T.V. and 

 Video rights committed by the producers Vijaya Productions 

 (P) Ltd for the various periods with the parties concerned and 

 the Lessees herein are entitled for the said rights after the expiry 

 of the periods committed thereunder."

3. A third agreement dated 11.12.1995 (Exhibit A-5) was entered into 

between respondent Nos.3 and 2 whereby and whereunder copyright for 

broadcasting of films through satellites, cassettes, disc, cable, wire, wireless 

or any other system including its transmission through cable system without 

restriction of geographical areas was assigned to respondent No.2 for a sum 

of Rs.8 lakhs. The relevant portions of the third agreement are also 

extracted below:

 "Now, This Agreement Witneseth:

 1. The Assignors irrevocably assign to the Assignees the 

 copyright for broadcasting the said films through satellite, 

 cassette, disc, cable, wire, wireless or any other system 

 including its transmission through cable system without 

 restriction of geographical areas and for this purpose the 

 assigners are authorized to make such copies of recordings on 

 film, taps, disc or such other media as may be required.

 5

 2. The Assignors have already delivered to the Assigners the 

 concerned version of the picture and sound negatives of the said 

 films as per the Agreement dated 25-6-1990 between the 

 Assignors and Assignees. 

 3. The Assignees shall have the full right to broadcast the said 

 Films after subtitling, editing, deleting any portion, altering 

 colour or inserting advertisement, or broadcasting the excerpts, 

 or programme including the excerpts, or part of whole of the 

 sound track only, at their sole and absolute discretion.

 4. The Assignees shall be entitled to assign their rights under 

 this Agreement in part or in full to any other party and to 

 broadcast through any authority or agency, at their sole and 

 absolute discretion including Doordharshan's Terrestrial 

 Primary Channels."

4. After five years, respondent No.2 entered into an agreement of lease 

dated 30.7.2001 with M. Srinivasa Rao and granted him rights of theatrical 

and non-theatrical (excluding satellite rights) exhibition and 35 mm 

exploitation, video, VCD, DVD, Audio and 16 mm by way of lease in 

respect of 14 films for the areas of Andhra and Nizam for a period of 60 

years for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of that agreement 

read as under:

 "5. The Lessees shall have the power to assign this agreement 

 either in part or whole to third parties at their discretion, 

 without any manner affecting the rights of the lessors under this 

 agreement.

 6. The lessors hereby grant to the lessees the rights of theatrical 

 and non-theatrical (excluding satellite rights) exhibition and 

 6

 35mm exploitation, video, VCD, DVD, Audio and 16mm by 

 way of lease of the following.

 7. It is agreed the lessors shall not lease out, sell or exhibit the 

 pictures in the territories for which the rights of exploitations 

 herein granted till the expiry of this agreement.

 8. In case the original procedures M/s Vijaya Productions Pvt. 

 Ltd. or lessors herein require any prints of the pictures lease out 

 herein for any overseas exploitation the same share be delivered 

 by the lessees herein at cost.

 9. It is understood between the parties herein that 16mm rights, 

 video rights committed by the producers Vijaya Productions 

 Pvt. Ltd. with the parties concerned was expired. The lessees 

 herein are entitled for the said rights."

5. M. Srinivasa Rao executed an agreement dated 17.8.2001 in favour of 

respondent No.1 and granted CDs, VCDs, DVDs, copyrights for 

transferring, processing, recording, duplication, copying, taping on to video 

grams, discs, CDs, VCDs, DVDs and the digital formats for commercial and 

private exhibition of the 15 films for the entire world.

6. Three days prior to the execution of the aforesaid agreement, 

respondent No.3 entered into an agreement dated 14.8.2001 with the 

appellant and assigned it exclusive DVD rights, VCD rights and internet 

rights (worldwide web TV rights) by way of lease in respect of the 15 films 

 7

for the entire world including Indian Union Territory for a period of 60 years 

in lieu of a consolidated royalty amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. 

7. Within 8 days of the execution of agreement dated 17.8.2001, 

respondent No.1 got published a notice in the newspaper dated 25.8.2001 

declaring that it had purchased DVD and VCD rights for 15 Telugu films 

produced by M/s. Vijaya Production. Thereupon, respondent No.3 issued 

telegram to respondent No.1 and called upon it to stop production of DVDs 

and VCDs. In its reply dated 31.12.2001, respondent No.1 relied upon 

agreement dated 17.8.2001 executed by M. Srinivasa Rao and claimed that it 

had purchased all the rights in respect of the 15 films. By way of rejoinder, 

respondent No.3 informed respondent No.1 that it had not sold or assigned 

any rights to respondent No.2 or M. Srinivasa Rao to produce DVDs and 

VCDs. 

8. After exchange of notices, respondent No.1 filed suit for grant of 

relief to which reference has been made in the opening paragraph of this 

judgment. It also applied for and was granted ex parte injunction by the trial 

Court on 23.6.2003, which was vacated on 22.8.2003. The appeal preferred 

by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

 8

9. In the written statement filed by the appellant through its Managing 

Partner Bh. Sudhakar Reddy, which was adopted by respondent No.3, it was 

pleaded that the rights of VCDs/DVDs had not been assigned by respondent 

No.3 to respondent No.2 and, as such, M. Srinivasa Rao could not acquire 

any such rights from respondent No.2 and assign the same to respondent 

No.1. In a separate written statement, respondent No.2 claimed that in terms 

of agreement dated 15.12.1995 executed with respondent No.3, it had 

acquired the rights for future technical development in the field of 

cinematography. Respondent No.2 pleaded that after accepting a sum of 

Rs.8 lakhs, respondent No.3 had assigned irrevocable copyright for 

broadcasting the said films through satellite, cassette, disc, cable, wire, 

wireless or any other system including its transmission through cable system 

without restriction of geographical areas and for this purpose, the assignees 

were authorised to make copies of recording of films, disc, tape or such 

other media as may be required. Respondent No.2 admitted that it had 

entered into an agreement dated 30.7.2001 with M. Srinivas Rao for 

assignment of the rights acquired by it under agreements dated 25.6.1990 

and 15.12.1995.

 9

10. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following 

issues:

 "1) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to maintain 

 the suit?

 2) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary 

 parties?

 3) Whether the agreement dt. 25.6.1990 will include 

 VCD/DVD rights and whether the plaintiff is entitled to 

 claim the broadcasting rights thereunder coupled with the 

 agreement dt. 15.2.2002 and thereby the plaintiff is 

 entitled for the manufacture and sale of the VCDs/DVDs 

 of the suit films?

 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of 

 declaration and the injunction sought for?

 5) To what relief?"

11. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced 

by them, the trial Court held that the suit was bad for non joinder of M. 

Srinivasa Rao, who is said to have assigned rights to respondent No.1. This 

is evinced from the following observations made by the learned trial Court: 

 "The plaintiff is claiming his right through M. Srinivasa Rao 

 from whom the plaintiff has obtained an agreement for 

 assignment of the rights over the suit schedule films. When the 

 defendants 1 and 3 have come forward with a specific 

 contention that the M. Srinivasa Rao have no right at all to 

 assign the VCD and DVD rights the plaintiff ought to have 

 impleaded the said M. Srinivasa Rao as a party to the suit. But 

 the plaintiff has not chosen to bring him on record and he has 

 10

 deposed in his cross examination that he has no grievance at all 

 against M. Srinivas Rao and therefore he thought that it is not 

 necessary to bring him on record. It is important to note that 

 the plaintiff is claiming right through M. Srinivas Rao. He has 

 purchased the rights from the 2nd defendant and because the 

 dispute is that he has conveyed the rights which was not 

 covered by the agreement under which he got the assignment in 

 his favour from the 2nd defendant the plaintiff ought to have 

 impleaded M. Srinivasa Rao as one of the parties and in spite of 

 the objection taken by the other side the plaintiff has not chosen 

 to bring the Srinivasa Rao on record but only satisfied by 

 saying that he has no grievance against Srinivas Rao. This 

 issue to be held as against the plaintiff holding that the 

 necessary party Srinivas Rao is not brought on record and 

 therefrom the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party and 

 Issue No.2 is held accordingly." 

12. The trial Court then referred to agreements dated 25.6.1990 and 

15.12.1995 executed between respondent Nos.2 and 3, agreement dated 

30.7.2001 entered into between respondent No.2 and M. Srinivasa Rao as 

also agreement dated 14.8.2001 executed by M. Srinivasa Rao in favour of 

respondent No.1, referred to the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, two 

judgments of the Madras High Court and concluded that the plaintiff has 

failed to make out a case for grant of declaration and injunction.

13. In the appeal filed by respondent No.1, the learned Single Judge 

framed the following questions:

 11

 "1. Whether the assignment of copyrights made by the third 

 defendant in favour of first defendant is true and valid?

 2. Whether the assignment of copyrights made by the third 

 defendant in favour of second defendant confers the right of 

 manufacturing and selling VCDs/DVDs and whether the rights 

 assigned and conferred under Exs.A.4 and A.5 are only meant 

 for `broadcasting' the suit films and if so, what is the effect 

 thereof?

 3. Whether the non-joinder of the person by name 

 Srinivasarao, who was allegedly the assignee from the second 

 defendant and assignor in favour of the plaintiff, would vitiate 

 the suit? or

 Whether the plaintiff can be non-suited for non-joinder of one 

 Srinivasarao who was allegedly the assignee from the second 

 defendant and assignor of the plaintiff?"

14. Although, the trial Court had not framed any issue which could give 

rise to question No.1 and in the appeal filed by the respondent no such 

prayer was made, the learned Single Judge invoked Order XLI Rule 24 of 

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and justified the framing of first 

question by recording the following observations:

 "The first point as formulated by this Court in this appeal was 

 not framed by the trial court as an issue in the suit. But in my 

 considered view, the trial court ought to have framed this issue 

 also in the light of the specific averment made by the plaintiff 

 in the plaint that the acquisition of rights by the first defendant-

 M/s Divya Exports from the 3rd defendant-M/s Nagireddy 

 Charities, represented by its Trustee-Venugopal Reddy was 

 totally false and baseless having regard to the fact that Sri B. 

 Nagireddy, the original Managing Trustee of the 3rd defendant-

 12

 M/s Nagireddy Charities, had already given away the 

 copyrights during the year 1995 itself in favour of the second 

 defendant. Hence, having regard to the said specific averment 

 made by the plaintiff in the plaint and also in the light of the 

 specific ground taken by the plaintiff in this appeal with regard 

 to the application of Section 73 of the Indian Trusts Act 1881 

 (for short "the Trusts Act"), I deem it absolutely necessary to 

 formulate the first point for consideration, exercising the 

 jurisdiction of this Court under Order 41, Rule 24 C.P.C. For 

 this reason, this Court formulated the first point as stated supra.

 From the submissions made at the Bar by the learned Counsel 

 appearing for the parties, it could be seen that the whole 

 controversy revolves around Exs.A.4 and A.5 and Ex.A.3 on 

 one side and Ex.A.3 on one side and Ex.B.1 on the other." 

 The learned Single Judge then referred to the pleadings and oral as 

well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, Sections 73 and 74 of 

the Trusts Act and held that Exhibit B.1 executed by respondent No.3 in 

favour of the appellant was not valid. Paragraphs 52 to 55 and 58 of the 

impugned judgment, which contain the reasons recorded by the learned 

Single Judge for arriving at the said conclusion, are extracted below:

 "52. What is more interesting to note is that no trust deed or 

 any other document was pressed into service by the first 

 defendant while getting himself examined as D.W.1 to clarify 

 or explain that Mr. Venugopalreddy had acquired the status of a 

 trustee of M/s Nagireddy Charities in order to effectively 

 represent the trust and to execute Ex.B.1 document in favour of 

 the first defendant. Interestingly, D.W.1 was the Special Power 

 of Attorney Holder also, representing M/s Nagireddy Charities.

 53. In other words, totally an alien, not connected with the 

 affairs of M/s Nagireddy Charities, but a beneficiary under 

 13

Ex.B.1, was examined as D.W.1, representing both defendant 

No.1 and defendant No.3. No document relating to 

appointment of Venugopalreddy as a trustee of M/s Nagireddy 

Charities, authorizing Venugopalreddy to represent trust has 

been brought on record and no person directly connected with, 

and having knowledge of the affairs of M/s Nagireddy Charities 

had been examined on behalf of the defendants.

54. It is to be remembered that the suit was instituted in the 

year 2003 and during the pendency of the suit Mr. B. Nagireddy 

was very much alive, of course, totally in a state of 

indisposition. In such circumstances, I am of the considered 

view that the burden heavily lies on either the first defendant or 

the third defendant to establish the change in trusteeship of M/s 

Nagireddy Charities, in which case alone Ex.B.1 document can 

be called as a validly and legally executed document by 

Venugopalreddy in the capacity of the trustee of M/s Nagireddy 

Charities in favour of the first defendant. Unfortunately, no 

other witness, except D.W.1, was examined in this behalf.

55. It is well-known principle that a person who has no 

proper authorization to represent a trust cannot enter into 

agreements with third parties in order to bind the trust - even if 

such agreements are entered into, such agreements are not valid 

in the eye of law. In the instant case, the first defendant and the 

third defendant - M/s Nagireddy Charities, represented by its 

Power of Attorney Holder have utterly failed to establish the 

capacity of Venugopalreddy as trustee to execute Ex.B.1 

agreement assigning the VCDs and DVDs copyrights in respect 

of the suit schedule films in favour of the first defendant during 

the lifetime of Sri Nagireddy, the Managing Trustee of M/s 

Nagireddy Charities. This is a strong and suspicious 

circumstance, which compels this Court, to hold that Ex.B.1 

was not executed by a proper and authorized person 

representing the third defendant-trust, conveying the copyrights 

of VCDs and DVDs in favour of the first defendant. Further, 

when Mr. Venugopalreddy's authority as trustee to execute 

Ex.B.1 is in serious doubt, first defendant, who is the 

beneficiary of the said document cannot be placed on a higher 

and comfortable position that Mr. Venugopalreddy.

 14

58. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it could be 

seen the court below while discussing issues 3 and 4, without 

going to the aspect of validity or otherwise of the assignment of 

copyright in favour of first defendant by third defendant, 

incidentally recorded a finding basing on the Xerox copy of a 

document Ex.A-12, that the plaintiff is estopped from raising a 

plea that B. Venugopal Reddy has no authority to represent 

third defendant trust. But a perusal of Ex.A-12 discloses that it 

is only a reiteration of assignment of broadcast rights under 

Ex.A-5. In this context it is to be noted that Ex.A-12 is only a 

Xerox copy and the original is not filed. No reasons were 

recorded by the trial court with regard to the admissibility of the 

said document. Even assuming that the said document was 

really executed by B. Venugopal Reddy in favour of second 

defendant, as already noticed, it is only a reiteration or 

confirmation of Ex.A-5. Further there is no cross-examination 

by the defendants 1 and 3 on this aspect and there is also no 

reference to this document in the written statements filed by 

them. Therefore, so long as the execution of Ex.A-4 was agreed 

to have been in subsistence by virtue of its execution by B. 

Nagi Reddy, Managing Trustee of third defendant assigning 

rights for a period of seventy years, Ex.A-12 does not gain any 

significance. If Ex.A-12 is to be accepted, notwithstanding the 

admissibility or otherwise of it, at best it has to be presumed 

that B. Venugopal Reddy had become the Managing Trustee of 

third defendant as on the date of execution of Ex.A-12 dated 

15-2-2002. But in the present case, the whole dispute is with 

regard to the authority of B. Venugopal Reddy to execute Ex.B-

1 document in the capacity of trustee of third defendant in 

favour of first defendant, which is a prior transaction. In other 

words the genesis of the rights of assignment of broadcast is 

Exs.A-4 and A-5, but not Ex.A-12. Furthermore, the reasons for 

bringing into existence of the controversial Ex.A-12 is not 

explained in the evidence of either of the parties and as its 

execution is subsequent to the execution of Ex.B-1, on which 

defendants 1 and 3 are mustering their claim of copyright of 

VCDs and DVDs, the same is not relevant and inconsequential. 

Hence, the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is estopped 

 15

 to question the validity or otherwise of the trusteeship of B. 

 Venugopal Reddy for third defendant is not justifiable."

15. Although, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties made 

elaborate arguments on the merits of the findings recorded by the learned 

Single Judge with reference to questions No.2 and 3 and produced 

publications titled Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (15th Edition), 

Goldstein on Copyright (3rd Edition) Volume 1 and the judgments of 

different High Courts, we do not consider it necessary to examine the same 

because in our considered view, the learned Single Judge was not at all 

justified in non-suiting the appellant by recording a finding that Exhibit B.1 

was invalid.

16. Since the trial Court had not framed specific issue touching the 

validity of agreement Exhibit B.1, the parties did not get effective 

opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. In the 

absence of any issue, the trial Court did not even advert to the question 

whether or not agreement Exhibit B.1 was valid. The evidence available on 

the record was not at all sufficient for deciding that question and yet the 

learned Single Judge decided that question by drawing inferences from the 

statements made by the witnesses examined by the parties with reference to 

 16

the issues framed by the trial Court and returned a negative finding on the 

validity of Exhibit B.1.

17. In our view, in the peculiar facts of this case, the learned Single Judge 

was not at all justified in invoking Order XLI Rule 24 CPC. If at all the 

learned Single Judge felt that the trial Court should have framed specific 

issue on the validity of agreement Exhibit B.1, then he should have 

remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to frame such an issue 

and decide the suit afresh. The omission on the part of the learned Single 

Judge to adopt that course has resulted in manifest injustice to the appellant. 

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set 

aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court with the direction that it shall, 

after considering the pleadings of the parties, frame an additional issue on 

the validity of agreement Exhibit B.1 executed between respondent No.1 and 

respondent No.3, give opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and 

decide the suit afresh without being influenced by any of the observations 

made by the High Court and this Court. 

 17

19. Since the matter is sufficiently old, we direct the trial Court to dispose 

of the matter as early as possible but latest within nine months from the date 

of receipt/production of copy of this judgment. The parties are directed to 

appear before the trial Court on 10.10.2011.

20. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to IX 

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad by 

fax.

 .....................................J.

 [G.S. Singhvi]

 ..............................

 ........J.

 [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi;

September 02, 2011.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,477 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: