High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 MAD CK 0242

Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Limited vs Reliance Broadcast Network Limited

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 November 2012 · Citation: (2013) 1 MLJ 22

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod K. Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
O.A. No. 448 of 2012 in C.S. No. 342 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 341 words

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This original application, under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved by the plaintiff/applicant for restraining the respondent/defendant from making defamatory announcement on their radio during the prime time. The plaintiff/applicant used the services of the respondent/defendant for advertisement of their products. The plaintiff/applicant is said to have made payment through cheque, which, according to the respondent/defendant, got dishonored.

2.

It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff, that instead of prosecuting the plaintiff/applicant, the respondent/defendant have adopted a noble method of making announcement on their radio, that the cheque issued by the plaintiff/applicant stands dishonored, for which they are taking steps to prosecute the plaintiff/applicant and are also issuing warning to the public not to deal with the plaintiff/applicant.

3.

The fact that defendant/respondent have made alleged announcement on radio, shows that the plaintiff/applicant has prima facie case, as the respondent/defendant has no right to interfere with the business of the plaintiff/applicant, merely because there is a dispute for recovery of money from the plaintiff/applicant. In case the injunction is not granted, the plaintiff/applicant will suffer irreparable loss, as the respondent/defendant are advising General Public not to deal with the plaintiff/applicant. The balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff/applicant.

4.

It is not in dispute, that in pursuance to the ad-interim injunction order, issued by this Court, the respondent/defendant have stopped from making such announcement.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondent/non applicant states that in future also, no such announcement will be made on the radio and that the respondent/defendant will take steps in accordance with law to enforce their rights, regarding recovery including right to prosecute for dishonoring of cheques. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent/non applicant, this original application is disposed off, by directing the respondent/defendant not to make any further announcement regarding the pendency of litigation in the Court or advising public not to deal with the plaintiff/applicant. No costs.