AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—The Applicant has filed the sun C.S. No. 1823/94, against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from infringing with the plaintiff''s copyright over the Telegu version of the picture ''Roja'' by telecasting the same through the satellite network Along with the plaint, the Applicant filed an application in O.A. No. 1292 of 1994 for interim injunction for the similar relief pending suit and restraining the respondent herein from telecasting the Telegu version of the film "Roja" on 10.12.1994 or any other subsequent date. The application came up for Orders on 8.12.1994 and this Court ordered private notice to the respondent returnable by 9.12.1994. One of the juniors attached to the counsel for the applicant, proceeded to the respondent''s premises at Madras for service of the notice. One Mr. Clemant, Programme Co-ordinator of the respondent, after going through the notice and connected papers represented that one Suresh, Branch Manager of the respondent, was only authorised to receive such papers and refused to receive the notice. On 9.12.94, the same was represented before Court and this Court has granted interim injunction. Again, the junior counsel accompanied by the court bailiff went to the respondent''s premises for serving the injunction order, but the staff of the respondent''s office refused to receive the same. The Bailiff affixed the injunction order on the door of the respondent''s premises. Moreover, the applicant had also sent a telegram to the respondent to his Madras Office about the order of injunction on 9.12.1994 itself. In spite of the telegram, the respondent has telecasted the said Telgu version of the Tamil "Roja" on 10.12.1994. Hence the respondent is liable to be punished for Contempt. Junior Counsel also filed an affidavit to the effect that he visited the place of the respondent and the respondent refused to receive the copy of the order.
The respondent has filed a counter stating that Jain Satellite Television is a Unit of Jain Studios Limited, a public limited Company at New Delhi and the Applicant has shown the respondent as proprietor of Jain T.V. On this ground, the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the respondent is one of the Directors of Jain Studio Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act at New Delhi, of which Jain Satellite Television is a unit. Jain T.V. has Regional offices at Madras And other Metropolitan cities in India. Jain Television through the Regional Offices, entered into agreement for acquiring rights for the Satellite Telecast of Motion Pictures. Their familiarity for a satellite Transmission is being done through a geostationery satellite, up-linked from Dubna, about 380 Kilometers from Moscow, Russia. The Respondent came to know about the interim injunction order only on 12.12.1994 on which date telegram was received by the Madras Regional Office and thereafter, he sent due instructions to the Telecasting centre to stop the telecast further and from 25.12.1994, the telecast has been stopped. On 12.12.1994, immediately after the receipt of the telegram, steps were taken and there is no intention on the part of the respondent to disobey the orders of the Court. Had he in fact knowledge about the interim injunction earlier, he would have acted properly. As he had no knowledge about the order prior to 12.12.1994, he could not do anything.
Heard both counsel for applicant as well as respondent. It could be seen that in the plaint as well as in the application, cause title of the defendant/respondent has been shown as "Jain Television (Mala Publicity Services P. Ltd.) No. 4 Lady Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Madras 4. Now in the contempt Application, the cause title of the respondent has been shown as "Dr. Jain, Proprietor, Jain Television-(Mala Publicity Service P. Ltd.) No. 4 Lady Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Madras 4. "It is contended by the respondent that the Jain T.V. is a Public Limited Company and it is not a proprietary concern. The plaintiff/applicant plead ignorance of the constitution of the Jain T.V. If the respondent-firm is a public Limited Company, the applicant should have taken necessary steps to serve on the respondent and also see that the concerned persons are informed about the injunction order. In this case, the applicant has served the copy of the order as well as notice on the Madras Regional Office, but they have not impleaded the staff of the Madras Regional Office in the Contempt Application, in order to ascertain whether these persons, had duly passed on the information about the order to the respondent, to the concerned persons, who are responsible in the management of the limited company. The service at the Madras Regional Office cannot be substituted as constructive notice on the respondent unless there is some materials to show that the staff of the Madras Regional Office have communicated to the Respondent herein, about the injunction order.
It has been held in Suresh Swaroop Srivastava Vs. T.P. Tewari and Others, as follows:
It was not possible to charge the opposite parties with committing the contempt of the Court''s order on the basis or constructive notice through the counsel because in a matter like this the actual knowledge of the order is a must before finding a person guilty for committing disobedience of the orders of the Court. Contempt proceedings are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings and no person can be found guilty for disobedience of the orders unless the orders are either formally served or at least the concerned officers have knowledge of the orders otherwise.
In 1970 Criminal Law Journal page 1520 in the case of The Aligarh Municipal Board and others v. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union and others, it has been held as follows:
In order to justify action for contempt of Court for breath of prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been officially served on the party against whom it is granted, if it is proved that he had knowledge of the order all under and he knew that it was intended to be enforced. Official Communication is not a condition precedent. Provided there is no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the order conveyed to him.
In Sadhu Venkayya and Another Vs. Colla Meenakshamma, it has been held as follows:
In cases where persons have to be committed for contempt of Court for the reason that they disobeyed the orders of Court, no question of constructive liability would arise. On the other hand, it is absolutely essential that it should be proved beyond doubt that the persons who were charged with contempt did really disobey an order validly passed by court and which was brought home to mem, and a copy or which was personally served in the manner required by the procedure.
From the abovesaid well laid principles of law, it is made clear that if a person is to be found guilty for contempt of Court, the applicant has to establish that the respondent had been served with order or atleast he had full knowledge about the order of Court which he had disobeyed willfully. In this case, there is absolutely no material to show that the respondent - Dr. Jain, has been served with copy of the order or it has knowledge about the order or injunction.
The further conduct of the respondent that after coming to know the order of injunction, he had given due instructions to the telecasting; section to stop the telecasting of the film forthwith and that fact has also been communicated to the applicant, would show that the respondent had not committed any willful act. Taking into consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. I am of the view that the respondent has not willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 9.12.1994. Accordingly the contempt Application is dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
In view of the disposal of the Contempt Application, no further orders are necessary in the Sub-Application, No. 22 of 1995 and the same is dismissed.