1971 (7) TMI 166 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the suit challenged by the first defendant in the trial court.
2. Plaintiff's objection to the issue of license to the first defendant.
3. Contention raised by the first defendant regarding the sustainability of a plea of improper grant of license in a civil suit.
4. Interpretation of the rule regarding liability established by statute.
5. Whether the plaintiff has a civil right to challenge the grant of license under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958.
6. Analysis of the plaintiff's right to object to the grant of license and the legality of seeking injunction through a civil suit.
7. Comparison with a similar case regarding legal rights and injurious effects.
8. Locus standi of the plaintiff and the reference to Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis:

1. The trial court initially challenged the maintainability of the suit, but the court below ruled in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the suit to proceed based on the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff objected to the issue of license to the first defendant, citing reasons such as the proximity of their theaters and non-compliance with rules. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from exhibiting cinematograph films.

3. The first defendant raised objections to the sustainability of a plea of improper license grant in a civil suit, questioning the plaintiff's locus standi and arguing for substantial compliance with the rules.

4. The judgment referenced the rule regarding liability established by statute, emphasizing the need for a specific remedy provided by the statute in cases where a liability is created by the statute.

5. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff had a civil right to challenge the grant of license under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, concluding that the plaintiff did not possess a personal right conferred by the Act.

6. The court further deliberated on the plaintiff's right to object to the license grant and the necessity to follow the statutory machinery for remedies, rather than resorting to civil courts for injunction purposes.

7. Drawing parallels with a similar case, the court highlighted the importance of legal rights and injurious effects, emphasizing that mere damage without legal injury is insufficient to sustain an action.

8. The judgment also scrutinized the locus standi of the plaintiff and the reference to Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the suit with costs throughout.