NEWS TELEVISION INDIA LTD. Vs. WORLD VISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two cross Civil Revision Petition Nos.5809 of 2001 and 6793 of 2001 one filed by defendant -petitioner namely News Television (India) Ltd. (now known as STAR India Ltd.) and the other filed by the plaintiff namely World Vision. Gurgaon a registered Cable Operator firm. Reference to the facts and details have been made mainly from Civil Revision No.5809 of 2001.

(2.) Defendant -petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 7.8.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon partially affirming the order dated 19.7.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon. The Civil Judge vide his order dated 19.7.2001 while deciding the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') has held that there is a prima facie case against the defendant petitioners and in favour of plaintiff -respondent. The balance of convenience was also held to be in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. It was further held by the Civil Judge that the plaintiff -respondent would suffer irreparable loss because the customers to whom the plaintiff -respondent has been providing the service of beaming various Television channels would hire services of other cable operators. The defendant -petitioner was also restrained from transmitting any programme/advertisement in violation of the programme code / advertisement code as defined under the Cable Television Network Rules 1994 (for brevity 'the Rules') and or in violation of the provisions of the Cable Television Network Regulatory Act, 1995 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Civil Judge also restrained the defendant -petitioner from switching off Star TV channels hired by the plaintiff -respondent subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement in question during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction and also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction alleging that the plaintiff -respondent is a registered cable operator providing cable service to the residents of Palam Vihar, Gurgaon under the name and style of M/s World Vision, Gurgaon. In the suit a direction for mandatory injunction against the defendant -petitioner has been sought to supply a copy of the agreement entered into between the defendant -petitioner and the plaintiff -respondent and to clarify all the queries raised by the plaintiff -respondent in its letter. Further direction sought was that the defendant -petitioner shall furnish an affidavit to the plaintiff -respondent stating that the programme/advertisements transmitted through the plaintiff -respondent on State TV Channels with the recorders and viewing cards do not violate the programme code and the advertisement code of the Rules or any other provision of the Act or any other law of the land. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant -petitioner from transmitting any programme/advertisement involution of the programme code/advertisement code in accordance with the afore mentioned enactments was also sought. Another prayer made was that the defendant -petitioner be restrained from switching off Star TV channels hired by the plaintiff -respondent subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement in question. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant -petitioner from transmitting any programme/advertisement in violation of the programme code/advertisement code and also from switching off the Star TV channels during the pendency of the suit. The Civil Judge vide its order dated 19.7.2001 allowed the application and granted injunction as has been prayed. On appeal filed by the defendant -petitioner, the Add], District Judge modified the order of injunction but still maintained the restrained order injuncting the defendant -petitioner from switching off transmission of the Star TV Channels during the pendency of the civil suit. Further direction issued by the Civil Judge restraining the defendant -petitioner from transmitting any programme which is against the provisions of the Rules or the Act was not maintained on the ground that there was no mechanism with the defendant -petitioner to stop the programme being telecast from Hong Kong. The order of the Additional District Judge proceeds on the following basis: -