Shraddha Sharma vs Culture Machine Media Pvt. Ltd.

Mridula Bhatkar, J.—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.

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.

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.

The relief claimed under prayer clause (b) is as follows:

"(b) Pending the hearing and disposal of the appeal, the Respondent be directed to hand over the administrative control and right of access of the Applicant''s channel to the Applicant on account to the expiry of the term of the Agreement;".

The plaintiff i.e., the respondent has taken out a Notice of Motion for injunction against the appellant. The Suit or the Motion is based on clause Nos.6.1 and 6.2 of the agreement which is expired on 2.8.2014. The trial Court has dismissed the Notice of Motion and has refused to grant relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The application for stay of the impugned order is also rejected. As on today, the respondent has not approached this Court and there is no order of stay obtained. The prayer made in clause 6(b), if not granted then it will tantamount to granting injunction and the order of the trial Court dated 17.11.2014 in fact will be frustrated. The appellant is a singer and she has a right to trade and if at all this relief is not granted, it is going to be violative of her right. Under Order 39 Rule 1a of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant can ask for injunction in the suit filed by the plaintiff. He can also ask for mandatory injunction considering the peculiar facts of the case. Thus, there is no bar for the defendant to move Notice of Motion in the suit of the plaintiff and or seek relief so that a property shall not be wasted. In the present case, the property is an intellectual property and if at all the relief under clause 6(b) is not granted, the order of refusing injunction will be nullified. The subject matter of the suit and the relief asked for are interlinked, so directing the appellant / defendant to file a separate proceeding for the same will lead to multiplicity of litigation, which can be avoided if this relief is granted. The relief prayed for in clause 6(b) is a necessary corollary and it is required to be granted as an equitable relief.

The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the synopsis of the Appeal from Order and the Civil Application, he has mentioned about the access to her channel by the respondent. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent that from July, 2014 till today, no such grievance was made, cannot be appreciated because on refusal of injunction it was not expected that the plaintiff could not hand over the administrative control and access. However, as the access was blocked and the administrative control is not handed over, the rejection of the injunction is itself defeated. Therefore, it is not beyond the scope of the Appeal from Order as the appeal is not disposed of and it is still pending. Though the first relief, i.e., prayer clause 6(a) has become infructuous, prayer clause 6(b) is still alive and it entails prayer clause 6(a). The appellate Court can give directions either to the parties to meet the ends of justice so that the main relief granted is to be actualised.

In the result, the civil application is granted in terms of prayer clause (b). Appeal from Order also stands disposed of.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks stay of the order for eight weeks. No justifiable reason is found to grant stay. Hence refused.