SHRADDHA SHARMA Vs. CULTURE MACHINE MEDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / original plaintiff has filed L.C. Suit No. 1828 of 2014 against the appellant herein i.e., original defendant, in which they had taken out Notice of Motion restraining the defendant who is a singer by profession from negotiating and entering into any agreement, contract and also promoting her music on YouTube channel. At the time of ad-interim stage, the appellant / defendant made a statement that she would not enter into any agreement with any other person till 21.8.2014 i.e., on the next date of hearing. However, her statement was extended without her consent by the trial Court and thereby passed orders dated 21.8.2014, 22.8.2014, 28.8.2014 and 6.9.2014 and further orders, which are Sherla V. challenged before this Court by filing this appeal against the said order. Civil Application No. 1210 of 2014 was preferred by the appellant for stay and also for directions against the respondent i.e., the original plaintiff, to hand over the administrative control and right of access of of the applicant's channel to the applicant on account of expiry of the term of the agreement. When this matter came up before this Court, arguments on the Motion were already advanced and, therefore, this Court directed the learned trial Judge to pass order and accordingly, on 17.11.2014, the learned trial Judge of the City Civil Court passed an order by which he rejected the said Motion No. 1777 of 2014. At the time of rejecting the said Motion, he has considered that the plaintiff has filed a suit on the basis of the enforcement of clause Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the agreement dated 3.8.2012 and it was an agreement for a period of only 2 years and as it expired on 2.8.2014, such injunction cannot be granted in respect of personal services.

(2.) In regular course, this appeal against an ad-interim order in the Motion has become infructuous. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that he is pressing prayer clause (b) in the Civil application No. 1210 of 2014. He submitted that he has already made this prayer before this Court pending Notice of Motion. After dismissal of the Motion, the plaintiff's application for stay was also dismissed. Albeit the dismissal of the said application, the plaintiff has not handed over administrative control over the said applicant's channel on YouTube and, therefore, it is not possible for the applicant to enter into any other contract and pursue her profession.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent/ original plaintiff objected to grant of such relief under prayer clause (b) of clause 6 of the civil application before this Court. She submitted such relief cannot be granted by this Court, especially when the suit is filed by her and a Notice of Motion is preferred by her against the defendant. She submitted that if the respondent is directed to hand over the administrative control and access is given to the appellant, then, it would be as good as deciding the suit finally. She submitted that the Civil Application is silent in respect of grant of such relief as there are no averments to that effect. She further submitted that from July 2014, till date, no grievance has been made in respect of the relief claimed. She further argued that the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) is beyond the purview of the Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 and, therefore, it cannot be entertained by this Court. She further pointed out that the appellant has already issued notice to the respondent in respect of handing over the administrative control and that notice is sent after dismissal of the Notice of Motion. She further submitted that the respondent, the original plaintiff, is going to challenge the order of the trial Court dated 17.11.2014 before this Court.