Allowed

Dilligent Media Corporation Ltd. v. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009NMS/1087/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Notice of Motion seeking a direction for the defendants to issue and publish a clarification stating the court never quashed the plaintiff's plea, finding the reported news item misleading.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were directed to issue and publish a clarification to the effect that the Court did not quash the plaintiff's plea.

Dilligent Media Corporation Ltd. Vs Bennett Coleman… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1087 OF 2005
IN

¶4

SUIT NO. 993 OF 2005

¶5

Deligent Media Corporation Ltd.

¶6

... Plaintiff

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Bennett Colemn & Co. Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

....Defendants

¶10

Shri R.D. Suvarna for Plaintiff
Mr. C.D. Patel i/b. Kanga and Co. for Defendants

¶11

CORAM: V.M. KANADE J.
DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1.By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff is
seeking following relief:

¶14

�that this Hon'ble Court be please direct the
Defendants to forthwith issue clarification
to the effect that this Hon'ble Court did not
quash the plea of the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants and in particular the Maharashtra
Times and the same may be published in the
same prominence in which the said article was
published on 6th April, 2005.�

¶15

2.The Plaintiff has filed the suit against the

¶16

Defendants seeking damages to the tune of Rs.10 crores
and also for a perpetual order of injunction restraining

¶17

the Defendants, their agents and servants from issuing
advertisement at Exhibit B-1 to B-5 and /or any other
similar advertisements so as to infringe the Plaintiff's
copyrights in the artistic work, literature work and
photographs comprised in the Plaintiff's advertising
campaign etc. In this suit, initially the Plaintiff took
out the Notice of Motion No.1013 of 2005. This Court by
order dated 4th April, 2005, recorded the statement of the
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants. The
Defendants through their Counsel made a statement that
the Defendants did not intend to nor were desirous of
repeating the impugned advertisement or advertisements
with similar concept which are the subject matter of the
present suit in any of the newspaper or media pending
decision of this suit. In view of this statement, the
learned Counsel for the Plaintiff did not press the
Notice of Motion and, accordingly, the Notice of Motion
was disposed of.

¶18

3.The grievance of the Plaintiff is that after the said
order was passed, the news item apearing in Time of India
on 6th April, 2005 under the caption � High Court quashes
plea against the Maharashtra Times ad�. Copy of the paper
cutting is annexed to the affidavit in support of the
Notice of Motion.

¶19

4.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶20

Plaintiff submits that the said article is misleading and
amounts to interference with the administration of
justice by this Court.

¶21

5.No reply has been filed by the Defendants to this
Notice of Motion. By order dated 17th March,2006, this
Court was pleased to direct that this Notice of Motion
should be heard along with suit itsef.

¶22

6.In my view, it is not necessary to keep this Notice
of Motion pending. It is obvious that the Notice of
Motion which was taken out by the Plaintiff vide Notice
of Motion No. 1013 of 2005 was not pressed in view of the
statement made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Defendants. Prima facie, therefore, the Defendants were
not justified in publishing an article in the newspaper
stating therein that High Court quashes plea against the
Maharashtra Times Ad. The said article, prima facie, is
misleading. There is much substance in the submissions
made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Plaintiff. Under the facts and circumstances of the
case, therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate if
the Defendants are directed to issue a clarification in
terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of Motion is,
accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
Notice of Motion is disposed of.

¶23

(V.M. KANADE J.)

Dilligent Media Corporation Ltd. v. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilligent Media Corporation Ltd. v. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors. Vs Broadways India Roadways Corpn.

Vimal R. Dalmia Vs Denver Packaging and 2 Ors.

Ajay Ratankumar Dalmia Vs Denver Packaging and 2 Ors.

Rabia Abdul Gani Vs S.P. Sharma and Ors. and Charles P. Baptista and Ors. (Appli) and Obadat Ibrahim Shaikh and Ors.

Jairam Timmayya Gowder Vs Smt. Kamalabai Dinanath Rajwadkar and Ors.

Morarji Hariram Vs Neera Handa Daughter of K.L.Handa and 2 Ors.