9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.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 Mr.Raman Kumar, Advocates for R-2. 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.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr.Advocate and Mr.N.K. Kaul, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Naveen Chawla, Ms.Sonali Jaitley, Ms.Subha Chauhan, Ms.Parul Yadav and Ms.Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advocates for R-1. Ms.Radha Rangaswamy, Ms.Rohini, Ms.Akhila Kaushik, Mr.Prem Kumar and Mr.Raman Kumar, Advocates for R2. Appellant Represented by: Mr.Abhinav Vasisht, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Amit Sibal, Ms.Radha Rangaswamy, Ms.Rohini, Ms.Akhila Kaushik and Mr.Raman Kumar, 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. Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote 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 4. CS(OS) No.2722/2012 was the first suit filed by Star India Pvt. Ltd. impleading Piyush Agarwal and Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. as defendants No.1 and 2, against whom relief of injunction and damages was claimed. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) was impleaded as a defendant No.3 but without any relief claimed against said defendants for the reason the plaintiff was claiming a right under an agreement with defendant No.3. An application for interim injunction was filed along with the suit. The suit along with the interim application was listed for admission before the learned Single Judge on 7th September, 2012 on which date defendants No.1 & 2 appeared before the learned Single Judge and as recorded in the order-sheet accepted summons in the suit and notice in the interim application and vehemently opposed grant of any ad-interim injunction. Granting time to file written statements it was directed that the defendants would deposit Rs.15 lakhs with the Registrar General of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile 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 except with respect to the description of the defendants; and similar relief was prayed for. The suit was listed before the learned Single Judge on September 12, 2012 when counsel appeared for defendant No.1 and accepted notice of summons in the suit and the application seeking interim relief. 30 days' time was granted to defendant No.1 to file the written statement and matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial for October 30, 2012. It was made clear that summons in the suit would be returnable for defendant No.2 for October 30, 2012. Application for interim injunction was directed to be listed on November 16, 2012 before the Court. 10. Order dated October 30, 2012 passed by the learned Joint Registrar simply records admission/denial conducted by plaintiff and defendant No.1 and admitted documents being exhibited. In spite of note put up by the Registry that there was no report regarding summons in the suit being or not being served upon defendant No.2, the learned Joint Registrar pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, 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 In-Charge Original Side called for the file of all the three suits and directed that all would be listed before one Hon'ble Judge. 16. It is due to the aforesaid administrative order passed by the Judge In-Charge Original Side that all the suits came to be listed before a learned Single Judge on November 08, 2012, when as per the impugned judgment and decree dated November 08, 2012, the suits were disposed of on merits after counsel for the parties were heard, holding that the plaintiff has not established any right either under the Copyright Law or the Common Law; and yet in spite thereof, a limited injunction has been granted as per paragraph 25 of the impugned decision. 17. The plaintiff of the three suits i.e. Star India Pvt. Ltd. as also BCCI have filed three appeals each challenging the impugned decree and defendants No.1 and 2 in CS(OS) No.2722/2012 have filed cross-objections vide CM No.19768/2012 against the limited injunction granted. 18. From the facts noted aforesaid it is apparent that the learned Single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 respect to service of summons on BCCI by the learned Joint Registrar who simply re-notified the matter for November 08, 2012 recording partial admission/denial. As regards CS(OS) No.3232/2012, it was listed for the first time on November 07, 2012 and noting that two earlier suits were pending before two other learned Single Judges, it was directed that the matter be listed before one of the two learned Single Judges. The Judge In-Charge Original Side called for all the three files and listed the same before one learned Single Judge. 22. BCCI had not been served with summons in two suits on November 08, 2012. It had been served with summons in only one suit. Pleadings had yet to be completed. CS(OS) No.2780/2012 was scheduled to be listed on November 16, 2012. 23. The learned Single Judge before whom all three suits were listed and who had not received the file of CS(OS) No.2780/2012 because the suit was listed before the learned Joint Registrar on said date, summoned the file for that very date and we find that without pleadings b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready 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 breaking the back of the judicial system, it was a rush-rush affair, and regretfully has resulted in a situation of precious time, far from being saved, being lost. 31. A self-contradictory decision, which on the one hand holds that law does not recognize the right sought to be asserted by the plaintiff, on the reasoning as we read that merely because one owns the broadcast (including re-broadcast) rights in an event, pertaining thereto law does not recognize any ownership in any underlying thing in relation to the event; concludes by issuing a limited injunction and in respect of the reason pertaining to the limited injunction, would recognize a proprietary right. A paradoxical situation. 32. This inherent contradiction would make it obvious that it is not a case where the learned Single Judge has rejected the plaint invoking power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC of the Code or the inherent powers of the Court. That apart, the plaintiffs concede that it is not their case in the plaint that the action is founded on any right under the Copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and remand the matter by restoring the suits and applications seeking interim injunctions for read judication by the learned Single Judge; but would simply observe that what the learned senior counsel was requiring this Court to do was to apply itself on the limited aspect: Whether pending hearing of application for interim injunction, should an ad-interim injunction ensue; and for which, in the paradoxical situation faced by us: of the learned Single Judge holding in one breath that the plaintiff(s) had no right and at the same time granting a limited injunction, we thought that we would be better advised to not even deal with the subject of the power of the Court, in the given situation, to consider exercising its very limited power to issue an ad-interim injunction, more so for the reason, prima facie, what is being transmitted to the customers by the cellular operators with respect to the game of cricket are facts; and it needs a serious jurisprudential debate to determine: Whether a fact is capable of being owned, and hence a proprietary right being claimed with respect to a fact relating to operations in an event. As described by N. Luhmann: Die Politik der Gesellschaft, op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
