Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 543/2018 & I.A. 14660/2018
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Anurag Mishra and Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Amita Sachdeva, Advocate for defendant no. 1 alongwith Shri
Virendra Marathe, Authorized Representative for D-1.
Mr. Rohan Rohtagi, Mr. Ankush Mahajan, Advocates for defendantno.
Dateof Decision: 30th September, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and damages filed against three (3) defendants. Defendant no.3
2. Learned counseldefendantno. 3 statesthatdefendant no.3 hasmadea statement before this Court on 02.02.2024 and defendant no. 3 is in full complianceof thesaid statement.He states thatthesuit may be disposed of qua defendant no. 3 in terms of the statement dated 02.02.2024 and defendant no. 3 undertakesto remain boundby the said statement. He states that in the main suit there is otherwise no prayer clause directed against defendant no. 3.
2.1. Learned counselfor the plaintiffs’ statethathehas no objection to the said prayer ofdefendant no. 3 in view of his undertakinggiven to this Court today.
3. In view of the undertaking of defendant no.3 and consent of the plaintiffs, thesuit is disposed of qua defendant no.3, binding him down to the undertaking given today with respect to his statement recorded on 02.02.2024. Defendant No.1
4. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 states on instructions of Mr. Virendra Marathe, theAuthorized Representative ofdefendantno.1 that she as well has instructionsto statethatdefendantno. 1 has not uploaded the impugned posts (filed at pages 2-20 of the plaintiffs document) and defendant no. 1 undertakesthat it shallnot post/reposttheimpugned postsin future as well. 4.[1] She statesto that extent defendant no. 1 is willing to suffer a decree for permanentand mandatoryinjunction in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). She states that in view of the aforesaid statement, the plaintiffs may consider withdrawingtheprayerclause(c) of damages qua defendant no.1.
5. In response, learned counsel for the plaintiffs’ states that in view of theundertakinggiven by defendantno. 1, he has instructionsto state that he will withdrawprayer clause(c) with respect to damages qua defendantno. 1 and praysthat thedecreefor permanent injunction and mandatoryinjunction be passed against defendant no. 1.
6. In view of the statements ofplaintiffs and defendant no. 1 a decree of permanentandmandatoryinjunctionis hereby passedagainst defendant NO. 1 in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
7. The statementofthe plaintiffs withdrawing its claim of damages qua defendant no. 1 is taken on record and plaintiffs is bound down to the same.
8. The registry is directed to draw up a decree sheet qua defendant no. 1 in terms thereof. Defendant no.2
9. With respect to defendant no. 2, learned counsel for plaintiffs’ state that defendantno. 2 has been duly served in these proceedings as recorded in order dated 10.01.2019, however, defendant no. 2 has elected to not participate in these proceedings. 9.[1] He states that afterthefiling of thepresent suit no further posts akin to the impugned posts have been uploaded by defendant no. 2 either. 9.[2] He states thereis an interim order dated25.10.2018 operating in this suit which binds defendantno. 2 and restrainsdefendant no. 2. Hestates that plaintiff would be satisfied if a decree of permanent injunction is passed against defendantno. 2 and thesuit is disposedof. He states thattheplaintiff reserves its right to claim damages against defendant no. 2 in case there is any violation of the injunction order by defendant no. 2.
10. In view of the fact that defendantno. 2 has elected to not contest the suit despite service of summons or the interim restraint order dated 25.10.2018operatingfor past six (6) years, it is evident that defendantnos. 2 has no defence to offer against the averments made in the plaint. The said defendant no. 2 has not filed any written statement in these proceedings. Accordingly, in exercise of its power under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, the present suit is disposed of qua defendant no. 2 by making the order dated 25.10.2018 absolute qua defendant no. 2 and to that extent a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) is passed against defendant no. 2.
11. The registry is directed to draw up a decree qua defendant no. 2 in terms thereof.
12. The relief of damages qua defendant no. 1 is permitted to be withdrawnwith libertyreserved to theplaintiffs to seek a claim of damages against defendantno. 2, in case thereis any violation by defendant no. 2 of this decree of injunction.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the suit along with all the pending applications stands disposed of.