9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 - MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MR. MANMOHAN SINGH JJ. Appellant Represented by: Mr.Parag Tripathi, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr.Gopal Jain, Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr.Shadan Farasat and Mr.Krishan Mohan, Advocates. Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Gayatri Roy, Mr.Hihanshu Bagai, Mr.Thomas George and Mr.Udit Sood, Advocates for R-1 R-2. Mr.C.A.Sundaram, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Amit Sibal, Ms.Radha Rangaswamy, Ms.Rohini Musa, Ms.Akhila Kaushik and Mr.Raman Kumar, Advocates for R-3(BCCI) Appellant Represented by: Mr.Parag Tripathi, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Maninder Singh, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr.Gopal Jain, Mr.Sidharth Chopra, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr.Shadan Farasat and Mr.Krishan Mohan, Advocates. Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms.Vandana Sehgal, Mr.Rohan Thawani, Ms.Noor Anand, Ms.Kirti Singh and Ms.Ruchi Jain, Advocates for R-1. Mr.Abhinav Vasisht, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Amit Sibal, Ms.Radha Rangaswamy, Ms.Rohini, Ms.Akhila Kaushik, Mr.Prem Kumar and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Ltd. and three by Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as the 'BCCI') against the judgment and decree dated 8th November, 2012 passed in three suits; being CS(OS) No.2722/2012, 2780/2012 3232/2012 filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. against the respondents which included BCCI as a common defendant in all the suits; being defendant No.3 in CS(OS) No.2722/2012 and defendant No.2 in CS(OS) Nos.2780/2012 3232/2012. 2. Suits filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. have been dismissed subject to the observations made in para 25 of the impugned decision dated November 08, 2012, which grant a limited injunction. Pithily stated, subject matter of the suits was the same i.e. a claim by Star India Pvt. Ltd. under an agreement entered into between it and BCCI and the complaint was that the activities of the contesting defendants transmitting match updates through MMS and SMS; alleging that the same were eating into the revenue of the plaintiff. 3. It would be relevant to note the dates on which the three suits filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. were listed before the learned Single Judge or the learned Joint Registrar attached to the Court. CS(OS) No.2722/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 2012, who recorded that defendants No.1 and 2 insist that they required the complete document for preparing the written statement. The learned Joint Registrar noted that the suit was already listed before the learned Single Judge on November 05, 2012 and accordingly directed that the said application would be placed before the learned Single Judge. 7. It stands recorded in the order-sheet dated November 05, 2012 that after some arguments counsel for the plaintiff stated that the original contract would be made available to defendants No.1 and 2. Presence of counsel for defendant No.3 was recorded inasmuch as said defendant had been served with the summons in the suit on November 01, 2012. The matter was adjourned to November 08, 2012 for arguments on the injunction application. 8. We highlight that with respect to the completion of pleadings in the main suit nothing was recorded in the order-sheet. CS(OS) No.2780/2012 9. CS(OS) NO.2780/2012 was filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. impleading On Mobile Global Limited and Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as defendants No.1 and 2 respectively. Averments in the plaint were identical as the earlier suit save and exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on defendant No.2 have till date not been received back, but counsel for defendant No.2 i.e. BCCI informs us that summons in the suit were received on November 12, 2012, i.e. much after the suit was disposed of. CS(OS) No.3232/2012 14. CS(OS) No.3232/2012 was filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. impleading Idea Cellular Ltd. as defendant No.1 and BCCI as defendant No.2. The suit was identically worded as the previous suits with similar reliefs. The suit and the application seeking interim injunction were listed for admission before the learned Single Judge on November 07, 2012 who passed the following order:- It transpires during arguments that another suit involving similar issue being CS(OS) No.2722/2012 is pending before HMJ Kailash Gambhir whereas another suit involving similar issue being CS(OS) No.2780/2012 is pending before HMJ Valmiki J. Mehta. Hence, subject to orders of Judge In-charge (Original Side), this matter be also listed before HMJ Kailash Gambhir on 8.11.2012. 15. Since order dated November 07, 2012 required formal orders to be passed by the Judge In-Charge Original Side to list the matter before another Judge as per the judicial order passed, the Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vember 05, 2012 on which date counsel appeared for BCCI, but the debate before the learned Single Judge, as recorded in the order dated November 05, 2012 was whether the plaintiff should file the original contract which it had entered into with defendant No.3 inasmuch as the contesting defendants, as per IA No.19780/2012 had informed the Court that unless they had access to the document on which the suit was founded they could not file a written statement; no orders were passed by the learned Single Judge with respect to written statement to be filed; and in any case as regards BCCI law grants 30 days time to BCCI to file a written statement. Only the injunction application was listed for arguments on November 08, 2012. The suit was not even listed. As regards CS(OS) No.2780/2012 summons were issued to BCCI for October 30, 2012. As regards defendant No.1 after directing written statement to be filed the application for interim injunction was directed to be listed on November 16, 2012. In the meanwhile the matter had to be listed before the learned Joint Registrar for admission/denial and service upon BCCI. There was no service report on said date. No orders were passed with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. 27. We remind ourselves of the ringing words expressed in the decision reported as [1924] 1 KB 296 R v. Sussex: Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. 28. We therefore do not deal with the merits of the matter at all and express no opinion on the impugned decision inasmuch as we find a serious procedural flaw, in that, when the suits were disposed of BCCI had not been served with summons in two suits. The contesting defendants of CS(OS) No.2722/2012 had yet to file a written statement. Their application under Order XI Rule 18 CPC for supply of the complete agreement on which the suit was founded was still pending. Only the application seeking injunction was listed for hearing on November 08, 2012. BCCI had been served with summons in the suit on November 01, 2012 and 30 days time available for filing the written statement was not over by November 08, 2012. In the other two suits BCCI had not even been served with the summons in the respective two suits. 29. What has happened is obvious. We have already opined thereon in paragraph 18 to 20 above. 30. With as many as 12 senior counsels breathing down the neck of the Judge; docket explosion bre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the plaintiff and if the view taken is that BCCI did not have any proprietary right which was capable of being assigned and hence the plaintiff had no cause of action to sue, the finding being declaratory of the proprietary right of BCCI, ought to have awaited a written statement filed by BCCI. 34. We only remind ourselves of the proverb: 'Haste makes waste' and its counterpart: 'Look before you leap'. 35. Sensing, and indeed smart counsels do when arguments are heard (probably from the questions posed by the learned Judges), that in all probability on account of procedures not being followed the impugned decision would be set aside learned counsel for Star India Pvt. Ltd. urged that since valuable rights of his client were adversely affected by the continuing offending activities, we i.e. the Division Bench must grant an ad-interim injunction till the learned Single Judge re-decides the application seeking injunction. 36. We declined to hear arguments on said issue for the reason we were inclined to set aside the impugned decision and remand the matter by restoring the suits and applications seeking interim injunctions for read judication by the learned Single Judge; bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten statement by BCCI has yet to surface. In what manner BCCI claims a proprietary/ownership interest would have to be seen for the reason we can foresee a situation where the right to commercially exploit would necessarily require a decision on the very existence of a proprietary right capable of being owned or recognized by law as a proprietary right. 37. The appeals and the cross-objection are disposed of setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated November 08, 2012. CS(OS) No.2722/2012, CS(OS) No.2780/2012 and CS(OS) No.3232/2012 are restored along with all pending applications, which would include the application seeking interim injunction. 38. We grant two weeks time to BCCI to file written statement in all the three suits and likewise grant two weeks time to such of the contesting defendants who have not filed written statements. Replications would be filed within a week. Within a week thereof the applications for interim injunction would be taken up by the learned Single Judge for re-hearing. 39. We make it clear that in view of the pleadings of the parties, if an issue arises whether Common Law recognizes any proprietary/ownership interest in BCCI with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
