Disposed

Roopnarain Sonkar v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Uttarakhand HC10 Mar 2022AO/53/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a refusal of a temporary injunction as infructuous because the TV serial had ceased broadcasting. The court granted liberty to amend the prayer in the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to the appellant to file an application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint before the Approaching District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun.

Roopnarain Sonkar Vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

SHRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

¶3

AND

¶4

SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

¶5

A.O. NO. 53 OF 2020

¶6

10^TH MARCH, 2022

Between:

Roopnarain Sonkar

..Appellant.

and

Star India Pvt. Ltd. and others. …Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the appellant:	Mr. learned c	H.C. ounse	B l.	isht,
Counsel for the respondents:	Mr. Sa learned	gar cou	Kot nsel	hari, for
	responde	nt No	. 1.
	Mr. S	hiv	Pan	dey,
	learned	cou	nsel	for
	responde	nt No	s. 2 t	o 4.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made the following:

¶14

JUDGMENT : (per Sri Justice S.K. Mishra, A.C.J. )

¶15

In this case, the appellant has assailed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun in Application Paper No. 5C filed by the plaintiff / appellant in Suit No. 1 of 2019 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

¶16

¶17

Procedure, 1908 for seeking a temporary injunction against the defendant No. 1 from broadcasting a T.V. Serial named “ Nimki Muhiya ”. The petition for temporary injunctions was rejected, and it is also borne out from the record that on 01.02.2020, the last episode of the aforesaid Serial was broadcast in the Star India Private Limited. Thus, the application for setting aside the refusal of temporary injunction has become infructuous. In our opinion also, Suit No. 1 of 2019 has become infructuous as it only seeks an order of perpetual injunction for telecasting the aforesaid Serial on the ground of violation of the Copyright Act and the Intellectual Property Rights Act.

¶18

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present A.O. as infructuous, but on the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant, grant him liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun for amendment of the prayer in the plaint. If the amendment is allowed, the learned Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun shall consider the effect of the amendment and shall re-determine the

¶19

¶20

Court Fee payable by directing the appellant to pay the

¶21

same, if there is any deficiency.

¶22

No order as to costs.

¶23

In sequel thereto, pending application, if

¶24

any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

Urgent copy of the order be issued to the

¶26

parties as per rules.

¶27

(S.K. MISHRA), A.C.J.

¶28

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

¶29

Dt: 10.03.2022 Rathour

¶30

Roopnarain Sonkar v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopnarain Sonkar v. Star India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyaveer Singh Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivani Vs Senior Superintendent of Police Haridwar

Vinita Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Preeti Vs State of Uttarakhand

Meenu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand