5th semester memo

8/18/2019 5th Semester Memo

1/24

TEAM CODE- R 69

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2015

IN THE HON’ LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition No.: ____/2015

IN THE MATTER OF

MEGHA SHARMA!!!!!!!""""""

!!!!!!!!!!!"APPELLANT

Versus

VISHAL PRATAP SINGH!!!!!!!!!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!!!

RESPONDENT

ON SU MISSION TO THE HON’ LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRITTEN SU MISSION ON EHALF OF THE RESPONDENT R -69


2/24

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY FIRST INTRA ROUND MOOT COURTCOMPETITION, 2015

TA LE OF CONTENTS

1" LIST OF A REVIATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!"#2" INDE$ OF AUTHORITIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"""!!!%#" STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""!!!6%" STATEMENT OF FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""&5" STATEMENT OF ISSUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!!96" SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""!!!!"10&" ARGUMENTS ADVANCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""!!!!!""11

a) Whether the the respondents have infrigned petitioners

cop right..............................................................................................!!!!11 ") Whether the respondents have "reached confendita"lit ...................................1#c) Whether the Learned Single $%dge &as right in sta ing the realse of the '( sho&

'he *ood Life+ ..........................................1,'" PRAYER!!!!!!!""""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!"""2%

LIST OF A REVIATIONS

v. (ers%s

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69 2


3/24


- -ll ndia eporter

-nr. -nother

-" -ppeal od

-rt. -rticle

al alc%tta

L rrissa La& evie&

Pvt Private

e.g. 34a ple

ed. 3dition

o o pan

6on7"le 6ono%ra"le

S S%pre e o%rt

"id "ide

nc. ncorporated

L. Legal

Llt. Li ited

INDE$ OF AUTHORITIES

-cts:

1. ndian op right -ct81,59

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69


4/24


oo;s:

1. 6als"%r 7s La&s f 3ngland8 P 2#1

2. Brundaban Sahu v. B. Rajendra Subudhi A 1,?# ri 210

. Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v.. Sonal Infosystems 2012


5/24


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION



6/24


'he present case has "een filed " the -ppellant %nder Article 136 1 of the Constitution of

India . 'he espondents ost respectf%ll s%" it to the C%risdiction of the 6on7"le S%pre e

o%rt of Narnia

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 1 #. Special leave to appeal " the S%pre e o%rt


7/24


1. Petition arises fro rder of Aivision ench of the Aelhi 6igh o%rt on nteri

-pplication setting aside the rder sta ing the release of the '( sho& D'he *ood

Life7.

2. Plaintiff clai s to have concept%aliEed the initial plot of a ne& sitco titled DLife and

St%ff7 in 2011. 'he plot and stor line &as then registered &ith the SW* in the for

of a s nopsis. 'he sho& pertained to life of of fo%r la& st%dents st%d ing at a

prestigio%s college.

. 'he plaintiff concept%aliEed the sitco '( sho& d%ring her ed%cation a"road and

then later on ∨ed it into a draft screenpla %pon her ret%rn to ndia8 so eti e in

$an%ar 201 .

=. Plaintiff ade f%rther changes to the initial script of the pilot episode and the initial

screenpla as &ell as f%t%re plotlines and registered the sa e &ith the SW* in or

aro%nd dece "er of 201 . 'he final screenpla &as titled D s it LegalF7Gfo%r la&

st%dents living in angalore

5. >r (ishal Pratap SinghA of the prod%ction ho%se

Area s @nli ited Pvt. Ltd. 6e is a rep%ted Prod%cer in the fil ind%str and has also

"een 34ec%tive Prod%cer in pop%lar '( sho&s s%ch as DHaari an78 DAil8 P ar8 a%r

Woh7 etc.

#. 'he Plaintiff atte pted to approach >r (ishal Pratap Singh8 original defendant No. 1

so eti e in or aro%nd $an%ar 201=. 34pectedl 8 she co%ld not gain access to >r

(ishal Pratap Singh. She persisted in her atte pts to reach >r Singh "%t fo%nd no

a%dience. -s a last resort >s Shar a decided to leave a covering letter as &ell as a

cop of the screenpla of the pilot episode &ere ad ittedl left at the reception des;

of >r Singh7s prod%ction ho%se. 'he sa e is %ndisp%ted. 'he letter and the

screenpla &ere in an %nsealed envelope. >s Shar a also sent a covering letter in the

"od of an e ail dated 1#th $an%ar 201= and attached the screenpla as &ell. 'he

receipt of the e ail &as ac;no&ledged " Singh7s secretar .

9. Since >s Shar a did not receive an co %nication till >a 201=8 she decided to

approach >r Singh again. >r Singh et >s Shar a on 1#th >a 201= &here he

infor ed her that he &as not interested in prod%cing a sit%ational co ed . the fact

that the eeting too; place is not %nder disp%te. it is the defendantIs case that the

envelope &as also ret%rned to >s Shar a. the plaintiff has stated that d%ring the

eeting the parties disc%ssed the indian ar;et for an english sitco "ased on thelives of la& st%dents. the defendants ad it of the eeting "%t disp%te the contents



8/24


thereof. the defendant s%" its that no disc%ssions a"o%t the plot &ere disc%ssed in the

eeting.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) 3/4+3/ ) *() )*3*3./)+ . 7+3 (*8

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69 ?


9/24


2" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) +) () *() ./4)/ 3 :*3*78#"W()*()+ *() L) +/) S3/ :) J; ) < +3 (* 3/ * 73/ *() +):) ) .4 *() TV (.<

=T() G.. L34)>8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) 3/4+3/ ) *() )*3*3./)+ . 7+3 (*8

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69 ,


10/24


'he appelants have &rongl% s%" itted that >r.(ishal Pratap Singh has infringed

there cop right. -s per BW- e La&s egistration shall not "e constr%ed as

egistration of op right+. 6ence the never had an cop right .2" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) +) () *() ./4)/ 3 *:3*78

'here &as no "reach of confidentialit on "ehalf of the respondents as theinfor ation &as not confidential in nat%reJ the plaintiff registered it &ith a nonG

stat%tor "od < SW*) th%s a;ing it a p%"lic do ain. >oreover the plaintiff gave

the script in an %nsealed envelope th%s giving rise to the fact that the plaintiff didn7t

intend to or co %nicate that the infor ation enclosed in the %nsealed envelope &as

confidential there &as no "reach of confidentialit on "ehalf of the respondents as the

infor ation &as not confidential in nat%re8 the plaintiff registered it &ith a non

stat%tor "od < SW*) th%s a;ing it a p%"lic do ain. >oreover the plaintiff gavethe script in an %nsealed envelope th%s giving rise to the fact that the plaintiff didn7t

intend to or co %nicate that the infor ation enclosed in the %nsealed envelope &as

confidential#" W()*()+ *() L) +/) S3/ :) J; ) < +3 (* 3/ * 73/ *() +):) ) .4 *() TV

(.< =T() G.. L34)>8'he learned single C%dge erred the respondents respectf%ll s%" it that there is no

ca%se in granting this sta d%e to the fact that a &ell esta"lished %rima fa#ie case had

not "een esta"lished8 even the "alance of convenience &as not in the appellant7sfavor and the respondents s%ffered grave da age and th%s the learned single C%dge

erred in his order to sta the release of the '( sho& 'he *ood Life+.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) 3/4+3/ ) *() )*3*3./)+ . 7+3 (*8

n the instant atter8 the respondents h% "l s%" it "efore 6on7"le -pe4 o%rt that the

there has "een no cop right violation8 as the -ppellants didn7t register the sa e &ith the

egistrar of the op right. -s per the Bact sheet it has "een contended " the -ppellant that



11/24


the concept%aliEed the plot and the initial stor line of the Sho& Life and St%ff+ &ith the

ndian Screen Writers *%ild.

Bor the p%rpose of clarit 8 the applica"le provision of ndian op right -ct8 1,59 is

reprod%ced "elo& G:

,. op right ffice. G


12/24


o&ner of the cop right8 or


13/24


boo! #an be the subje#t@matter of #ivil or #riminal remedy$ so that$ without it the author #an

have no ri"hts$ nor remedies in s%ite of the fa#t that his wor! is an ori"inal one.

n the case of Brundaban Sahu vs B. Rajendra Subudhi 8 t &as held that Re"istration was

mandatory for a#tion for infrin"ement under the )o%yri"ht A#t$ 78

-s o"served " Lord lac;"%rn in the case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford 5 and as reiterated

" the S%pre e o%rt in the case of un!a" Si#h $e%ular &otor Service' &oudhpara vs.(he $e%ional (ransport Authority'$aipur and Anr #

C1nablin" words are #onstrued as #om%ulsory whenever the obje#t of the %ower is to

effe#tuate a le"al ri"ht

'h%s8 it is clearl evident fro the a"ove $%dg ents that -ppellants failed to co pl &ith the

stat%tor re %ire ents and hence there is no cop right. t is erroneo%s to %nderstand Section

== as not a andator provision.'he &ord a + in Section == sho%ld "e constr%ed asshall+. B%rther8 as per the onstit%tion of Bil Writer -ssociation " eGla&s 'he

egistration shall not "e constr%ed as I op right egistrationI.+ 'he said " e la& disp%tes the

appellants position of clai ing op right in the plot and the stor line.

- 1,?# ri 210

4 Dhiraj Dharamdas Dewani v. Sonal Infosystems 2012- 1??0

6 - 1,,# S 1 1?



14/24


t is h% "l s%" itted " the espondents that the appellants are &rong in clai ing the

cop right in the idea of Life and 'i es of fo%r la& st%dents st%d ing at prestigio%s la&

school7. t7s a f%nda ental principle of cop right la& that there is no protection for an idea.

34plaining the Aoctrine of deaG34pression Aichoto 8 the Aelhi 6igh co%rt held that G:

op right La& is pre ised on the pro otion of creativit thro%gh s%fficient protection. n

other hand8 vario%s e4e ption and doctrines in cop right la& &hether stat%toril e "edded

or C%diciall innovated8 recogniEe the e %all co pelling need to pro ote creative activit

and ens%re that the privilege granted " cop right do not stifle disse ination of infor ation.

'&o doctrine that co%ld "e i ediatel "e s% oned are the deaGe4pression dichoto and

the doctrine of fair %se. P%"lic nterest in the free flo& of infor ation is ens%red thro%gh

ideaGe4pression dichoto 8 &hich ens%res that no cop right is granted in ideas8 facts or

infor ation. 'his creates a p%"lic pool of infor ation and idea fro &hich ever one can

dra&. -t the sa e ti e8 the $%dge Leval o"serves that all creativit is in part of derivative8 in

that8 no creativit is co pletel original : 1a#h advan#e stands on buildin" blo#!s fashioned

by %rior thin!ers +. 9


15/24


not to create an legal or intellect%al propert rights in the idea "%t in the final o"Cect or the

∨ &hich is created as a res%lt of the effort ade to give a ph sical shape to an idea , .

B%rther8 the prod%cer in past have alread prod%ced sho&s on the e of love s%ch as

Harri an8 Ail8P ar a%r Woh etc.+.

n the case of Bar"ara (aylor Bradford vs Sahara &edia /ntertain-ent 0td 10

:If %lots and ordinary %rototy%e #hara#ters were to be %rote#ted by the #o%yri"ht law$ then

soon would #ome a time in the literary world$ when no author would be able to write

anythin" at all without infrin"in" #o%yri"ht. athers$ mothers$ reven"e$ lust$ sudden #omin"

into fortune.

t is contended " the plaintiff7s that apart fro the the e8there also e4ists an ore

si ilarities in the defendantIs ∨. t is h% "l s%" itted " the respondents that ere

hac;ne ed ele ents cannot f%rnish the "asics of finding s%"stantial finding. 'he plaintiff

contends that one of the si ilarities is is ho& the "o as;s o%t the girl for dinner+. -s per the

fact sheet8 the relevant part is reprod%ced "elo&G:

@A ': 6e 8 &as &ondering... Aid it h%rt &hen o% fell do&n fro heavenF

S-NH-:


16/24


plot8 the e8 stor line is not in p%"lic do ain.+ 'he sho& tal;s a"o%t the life of college

st%dents. Scenes li;e - la e pic; %p line and girl la%ghing to that8 the "as;et"all scene8 the

canteen scene8 disp%te "et&een the landlord and tenant or disp%te "et&een the neigh"or and

the tenant8 tenant thro&ing a h%ge part &ith alcohol and hiding alcohol " doing so ething

&itt are cliche or scenes a faire and th%s are integral part of college life. 'he are there is

ovies li;e 6app 3nding &here the actor %ses la e pic; %p lines to flirt8 in the ovie

ProCect &here the school st%dents invite h%ge n% "er of st%dents for a part &ith alcohol

and s%"se %ent disp%te "et&een the neigh"or and the st%dents.6ence cop right doesn7t e4ist

in s%ch ∨ and there is no infringe ent of cop right.

2" W()*()+ *() +) ./ )/* ( ) +) () *() ./4)/ 3 *:3*78

'he g%iding principles of the la& confidentialit are disc%ssed in the case Coco v. A. . Clar#

5/n%ineers 0(+ 13. 'his case provides %s &ith three tests as to &hether infor ation is

confidential or not.

• &he information must be of a #onfidential nature. Somethin" that is %ubli# %ro%erty and

%ubli# !nowled"e #annot %er se %rovide any foundation for %ro#eedin"s for brea#h of

#onfiden#e. +owever #onfidential the #ir#umstan#es of #ommuni#ation$ there #an be no

brea#h of #onfiden#e in revealin" to others somethin" that is already #ommon

!nowled"e. But this must not be ta!en too far. Somethin" that has been #onstru#ted

solely from materials in the %ubli# domain may %ossess the ne#essary ?uality of

#onfidentialityH for somethin" new and #onfidential may have been brou"ht into bein" by

the a%%li#ation of the s!ill and in"enuity of the human brain. *ovelty de%ends on the

thin" itself$ and not u%on the ?uality of its #onstituent %arts. 0hether it is des#ribed as

ori"inality or novelty or in"enuity or otherwise$ I thin! there must be some %rodu#t of the

human brain$ whi#h suffi#es to #onfer a #onfidential nature u%on the information.• Se#ondly$ information must be #ommuni#ated in #ir#umstan#es that %rovide an

obli"ation of #onfiden#e no matter how se#ret and the information is$ it #ant be deemed

#onfidential if it is blurted out in %ubli# or is #ommuni#ated whi#h ne"ate any duty of

holdin" its #onfidentiality 4the unsealed envelo%e5.

13

)o#o v. A.*. )lar! 41n"ineers5 L'A8 6A 1,#?

Written Submission on behalf of Respondents R-69 1#


17/24


• &hirdly$ there must be an unauthori ed use of the information to the detriment of the

%erson #ommuni#atin" it. Some of the statements of %rin#i%le in the #ases omit any

mention of detrimentJ others in#lude it.

reach of confidence is a co on la& tort that protects private infor ation that is

conve ed in confidence. - clai for "reach of confidence t picall re %ires the

infor ation to "e of a confidential nat%re8 &hich &as co %nicated in confidence8 and

&as disclosed to the detri ent of the clai ant 1=.

'he respondents h% "l contend "efore this 6on7"le co%rt that the infor ation

provided " the appellants is not confidential in nat%re. 'he script for the pilot episode

has "een registered &ith the ndian Screen Writers *%ild < SW*)8 &hich is a nonG

stat%tor a%thorit . 'h%s it is f%rther contended that if a partic%lar concept is registered

&ith the SW*8 no inC%nction can "e granted as after the s%" ission of the concept to the

SW* a%thorities8 the sa e is in p%"lic do ain. 'herefore infor ation that is alread in

a p%"lic do ain cant "e dee ed as confidential in nat%re as it fails the test laid in o%t in

the land ar; case Coco v. A. . Clar# 5/n%ineers 0(+ .7<

n the case $.) Anand v. &*s +elux ,il-s others7

the ape4 co%rt stated that here#an be no #o%yri"ht in an idea$ subje#t matter$ themes$ %lots or histori#al or le"endary fa#ts

and violation of the #o%yri"ht in su#h #ases is #onfined to the form$ manner and arran"ement

and e(%ression of the idea by the author of the #o%yri"hted wor!. 0here the same idea is

bein" develo%ed in a different manner$ it is manifest that the sour#e bein" #ommon$

similarities are bound to o##ur. In su#h a #ase the #ourts should determine whether or not the

similarities are on fundamental or substantial as%e#ts of the mode of e(%ression ado%ted in

the #o%yri"hted wor!. If the defendantLs wor! were nothin" but a literal imitation of the

#o%yri"hted wor! with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the

#o%yri"ht. In other words$ in order to be a#tionable the #o%y must be a substantial and

material one whi#h at on#e leads to the #on#lusion that the defendant is "uilty of an a#t of

%ira#y.

An idea %er se has no #o%yri"ht. But if the idea is develo%ed into a #on#e%t fled"ed with

ade?uate details$ then the same is #a%able of re"istration under the )o%yri"ht A#t. &he14

"id15 "id1# R., Anand v. M-s Delu( ilms / others 8 1,9? - 1#1



18/24


novelty and innovation of the #on#e%t of the %laintiff resides in #ombin" of a reality &V show

with a subje#t li!e mat#h ma!in" for the %ur%ose of marria"e. 79

An a#tionable brea#h of #onfiden#e will arise when an idea$ whether or not %rote#table$ is

offered to another in #onfiden#e$ and is voluntarily re#eived by the offeree in #onfiden#e with

the understandin" that it is not to be dis#losed to others$ and is not to be used by the offeree

for %ur%oses beyond the limits of the #onfiden#e without the offerorLs %ermission. In order to

%revent the unwarranted #reation or e(tension of a mono%oly and restraint on %ro"ress in

art$ a #onfidential relationshi% will not be #reated from the mere submission of an idea to

another. &here must e(ist eviden#e of the #ommuni#ation of the #onfidentiality of the

submission or eviden#e from whi#h a #onfidential relationshi% #an be inferred. Amon" the

fa#tors from whi#h su#h an inferen#e #an be drawn areH %roof of the e(isten#e of an im%lied@in@fa#t #ontra#t 4 +avies v. Krasna' >< )al.A%%. d 8N5J or %roof of a

%arti#ular relationshi% su#h as %artners$ joint adventurers$ %rin#i%al and a"ent or buyer and

seller under #ertain #ir#umstan#es. 4Blaustein v. Burton$ 8 )al.A%%.=d 7 7$ 7E9 EE )al.R%tr.

=78NJ &hom%son v. )alifornia Brewin" )o.$ 7< )al.A%%. d > 8$ >9< =7 . d >= N.5 7E

'he respondents &o%ld li;e to contend that the plaintiff &hile giving %s an %nsealed

envelope no&here notified to %s that the letter &as to "e ;ept confidential. -s for the e ail

that is sent " the plaintiff8 the respondents contend that the defendants did not open the

attach ent that a or a not have had so e confidential infor ation sent " the plaintiff.

n the legal parlance the iss%e of confidentialit co es %p &here an o"ligation of confidence

arises "et&een a Ddata collector7 and a Ddata s%"Cect7 'his a flo& fro a variet of

circ% stances or in relation to different t pes of infor ation8 &hich co%ld "e e plo ent8

edical or financial infor ation. -n o"ligation of confidence gives the data s%"Cect the right

not to have his infor ation %sed for the p%rposes or disclosed &itho%t his per ission %nless

there are other overriding reasons in the p%"lic interest for this to happen. 'hat is8 &hen

infor ation for a p%rpose other than that for &hich it &as provided .1,

19 Anil ,u%ta and Anr. v. Kunal Das ,u%ta and Ors$ - 2002 Aelhi 9,

18 aris v. 1nber"


19/24


'his hon7"le co%rt shall consider the validit of the script passed on " the petitioner to the

respondent for the per%sal of the respondent8 &hich is stated that d%ring the eeting the

respondent had denied to a;e the sa e8 as he didn7t find it via"le for his "%siness. 'he sole

reason as the to deliver of the petitioners script in disp%te &as given in an %nsealed envelope

does not direct as for the alicio%s %sage of the respondent for his professional %se.

#" W()*()+ *() L) +/) S3/ :) J; ) < +3 (* 3/ * 73/ *() +):) ) .4 *() TV (.<

=T() G.. L34)>8? W()*()+ *()+) 3 )/.; ( ; ) *. * 7 *() +):) ) .4 *() TV (.< =T() G..

L34)>

-n inC%nction is a C%dicial process &here" a part is re %ired to do8 or to refrain fro doing8

an partic%lar act. t is a re ed in the for of an order of the co%rt addressed to a partic%lar

act. t is a re ed in for of an order of the co%rt addressed to a partic%lar person that either

prohi"its hi fro doing or contin%ing to do a partic%lar act8 or orders hi to carr o%t a

certain act 20. 'he pri ar p%rpose of granting interi relief is the preservation of propert in

disp%te till legal rights and conflicting clai s of the parties "efore the co%rt are adC%dicated.

n other &ords the o"Cect of a;ing an order regarding interi relief is to evolve a ∨a"le

for %la to the e4tent called for " the de ands of the sit%ation ;eeping in ind the pros and

cons of the atter and stri;ing a delicate "alance "et&een t&o conflicting interests i.e.8 inC%r

and preC%dice is a "e ca%sed even to the defendants. 'he co%rt %st &eigh one need against

another and deter ine &here the "alance of convenience lies and a pass an appropriate

order in e4ercise of its discretionar po&er 21.

n a general vie&8 "efore "efore granting an inC%nction8 the co%rt %st "e satisfied

a"o%t the follo&ing 22


20/24


needs investigation and a decision on erits. 2 While deter ining this8 the relevant

consideration is &hether on the evidence led8 it is possi"le to arrive at the concl%sion

in %estion and not &hether that is the onl concl%sion &hich can "e arrived at on that

evidence. 2= 'he e4istence of a pri a facie case alone does not entitle the applicant for

a te porar inC%nction 25.• Whether the plaintiff is or &ill s%ffer fro an irrepara"le loss if the inC%nction is not

granted: this is the second condition that the plaintiff needs to satisf the co%rt &ith "

sho&ing that he &ill s%ffer irrepara"le inC%r or loss if the inC%nction is not granted.• Whether the "alance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff: the third condition that

needs to "e satisfied " the plaintiff is &hether the "alance of convenience is in favor

of the plaintiff. 'he co%rt needs to "e satisfied that the hardship or inconvenience

&hich is li;el to "e ca%sed to the plaintiff " ref%sing the inC%nction &ill "e greater than that &hich is li;el to "e ca%sed to the opposite part " granting it.

'he o"Cection of the interloc%tor inC%nction8 it statedJ is to protect the plaintiff

against the inC%r " violation of his rights " &hich he co%ld not ade %atel "e

co pensated in da ages recovera"le in the action if the %ncertaint &ere resolved in

his favo%r at the trial. 'he need for s%ch protection %st "e &eighed against the

corresponding need of the defendant to "e protected against the inC%r res%lting fro

his having "eing prevented fro e4ercising his o&n legal rights for &hich he co%ld

not "e ade %atel co pensated. 2#

n cases &here an e %ita"le relief &o%ld "e s%fficientl co pensated for onetaril 8

then the o%rts refrain fro "eing &ooden and granting inC%nctions alone instead of

conte plating the nearest appro4i ation8 &hich it can a;e. 'he ere fact that a

pri a facie case e4ists for the grant of an inC%nction or even the additional

intelligence that a part see;ing for it &o%ld s%ffer irrepara"le har or inconvenience

" this8 a not "e s%fficient criteria for the granting of an inC%nction. efore the

o%rt e4ercises its C%risdiction8 to grant s%ch a interi relief8 &hich is essentiall an

e %ita"le and a discretionar re ed the o%rt &ill have to "e f%rther satisfied that

23 "id24

Martin Burn 2td. v.. R.*. Banerjee 8 - 1,5? S 9,25 ))1 v. Dunlo% India 2td .8


21/24


the co parative ischief or inconvenience &hich is li;el to arise fro &ithholding

an inC%nction &ill "e greater than that &hich is li;el to arise fro granting it 29.

-lso8 even if there is a pri a facie case ade o%t " the plaintiffs the sho%ld fail

"eca%se the "alance of convenience8 and the li;el preC%dice to "e ca%sed to the t&o

sides on the t&o possi"ilities of grant or ref%sal of inC%nction8 indicated that &a is not

in their favo%r 2?.

n the case (7entieth Century ,ox ,il- vs 8ee (elefil-s 0td. Ors . 8 it &as held

that

In the #ir#umstan#es$ the %laintiff has failed to ma!e out %rima fa#ie #ase at the

sta"e. Sin#e the serial has already been tele#ast$ restrainin" the defendants from

tele#astin" the serial further will #ause more in#onvenien#e to the defendants$ it is

more so be#ause the serial of the defendant C&ime BombC has already been tele#ast as

also the serial of the %laintiff. Des%ite the serial already havin" been tele#ast$ the

%laintiff has not modified his %rayers in any manner des%ite the %assa"e of

#onsiderable time. In these #ir#umstan#es$ it is a%%arent that defendant shall suffer irre%arable loss if the %laintiff is "ranted injun#tion as has been sou"ht by him. It may

also lead to multi%li#ity of %ro#eedin"s and in the #ir#umstan#es$ it will not be

a%%ro%riate even to dire#t the defendant to submit the s#ri%t of his serial to the

%laintiff at this sta"e.

'he respondents h% "l s%" it that there &as no ca%se to sta the release of the '(

sho& 'he *ood Life+ and that the learned single C%dge erred in doing so. t is

i portant to note that the respondents had alread set o%t a date for the release of the

pilot episode of the '( sho& and necessar ti e and one &as invested in pilot

episode of the '( sho&. t is also ver i portant to note that even if a %rima fa#ie

case is not esta"lished8 the "alance of convenience &ill have to "e loo;ed into

29 R.M. Subbiah And Anr. v. *. San!aran *air And Anr$ AIR 7898 Mad <

2?

Barbara &aylor Bradford v. Sahara Media 1ntertainment 2td$ > 475 )+* >>E29 &wentieth )entury o( ilm v. 6ee &elefilms 2td. / Ors.$ MI R 7 4 5=99



22/24


granting s%ch an interi sta it has ca%sed a great a o%nt of hardship and

inconvenience to the respondents8 &hich &o%ld not have "een ca%sed to the appellants

if the pilot episode &ere released.

'he respondents &o%ld f%rther li;e to contend that an interi sta sho%ld onl "e

granted if no onetar co pensation co%ld "e given. n this case since it has "een

esta"lished that there &as no cop right infringe ent and no "reach of confidence8 the

learned single C%dge erred in sta ing the release of the '( sho&. t can also "e

inferred fro the a%thorities cited a"ove that if a s%"stantial invest ent of "oth ti e

and one has "een ade8 it &ill ca%se grave inC%stice and the "alance on

convenience &ill not lie in favor of the appellant and therefore no interloc%tor sta or

inC%nction sho%ld "e granted.

'h%s the respondents respectf%ll s%" it that there is no ca%se in granting this sta

d%e to the fact that a &ell esta"lished %rima fa#ie case had not "een esta"lished8 even

the "alance of convenience &as not in the appellant7s favor and the respondents

s%ffered grave da age and th%s the learned single C%dge erred in his order to sta the

release of the '( sho& 'he *ood Life+.



23/24


PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the facts stated8 iss%es raised8 a%thorities cited and arg% ents

advanced8 the respondents respectf%ll re %est and s%" it "efore this 6on7"le o%rt to

adC%dge that:

1. 'o dis iss the SLP filed against the order of division "ench "efore the 6on7"le o%rt.

2. 'here &as no "reach of confidence "

. 'here &as no infringe ent of cop right.

OR

>a pass an order8 decree or C%dg ent in the light of $%stice8 3 %it and *ood onscience

for &hich the co%nsel for espondents shall pra d%t "o%nd as ever ost h% "l to this

6on7"le o%rt.

-ll of &hich is ost respectf%ll 8 h% "l and e %ita"l s%" itted and affir ed "efore this

6on7 le o%rt

Sd//_______________

o%nsel for espondents

Aate: 1 $%l 8 2015.

Place: Ne& Aelhi



24/24


2=

5th semester memo

Documents