Interim Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON AD INTERIM RELIEF IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1492 OF 2020
(CNR no. MHCC01-004529-2020)
IN
SUIT NO. 1146 OF 2020
(CNR no. MHCC01-004445-2020)
Hansa Research Group Pvt. Ltd. ]
a Company incorporated under the ]
Companies Act, 1956 and having its office at ]
first floor, Building-A, Sahney Business Centre, ]
Kirol Road, Vidhyavihar (West), Mumbai-400086. ]... Plaintiff
Versus
1. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. ]
a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, ]
1956, and having its registered office at ]
Bombay Dyeing Compound, Worli, Mumbai-400018. ]
2. Arnab Ranjan Goswami, ]
Age : Not known, Occupation : Journalist, ]
having his office at Bombay Dyeing Compound, ]
Worli, Mumbai-400018. ]....Defendants
Appearances:-
Ld. Advocate Mr. N. D. Jaywant for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mr. P. D. Gandhi I/b Phoenix Legal for the defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI C. V. MARATHE
(Court Room no. 4)
DATED : 21st October, 2020
O R A L O R D E R O N A D - I N T E R I M R E L I E F
1. Being aggrieved by disclosure of its internal report in the
telecasts of Republic TV news channel on 10.10.2020 and on
-- 1 of 10 --
2 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
subsequent dates, the plaintiff Company has approached the Civil Court
for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 and 2
from referring in their broadcast, the internal document of the plaintiff
termed by the defendants as “Hansa Report” or any other internal
document of the plaintiff Company till final disposal of the suit.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to decision
of the instant application by Notice of Motion are as under:
The plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956. The Broadcast Audience Research Council (hereinafter
referred as “BARC”), the authority measuring the viewership data of
various channels, commissioned the plaintiff in the year 2014 to be part
of TV Audience Measurement Process by installing barometers to
capture ‘what India watches’. Certain channels allegedly attempted to
manipulate their viewership data which had large impact on the tariffs
of television advertisements based on such viewership data. The
vigilance Team of BARC with the help of plaintiff found that the ex-
employee of the plaintiff Company was inducing the viewers to watch
particular channels. Deputy General Manager of the plaintiff Company.
Shri Nitin Kashinath Deokar filed report with Kandivali (West) Police
Station and offence vide FIR No.843 of 2020 came to be registered on
-- 2 of 10 --
3 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
06.10.2020. During the press conference on 08.10.2020 the
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai named Republic TV, a news channel
conducted by defendant no.1 under the editorship of the defendant
no.2, as one of the channels who were trying to manipulate Television
Rating Points (hereinafter referred as “TRP ratings”). In response to the
said press conference, the Republic TV in its telecast on 10.10.2020
referred to the draft internal document of the plaintiff calling it as
“Hansa Report” (hereinafter “Hansa Report”).
3. It is alleged in the plaint that Hansa Report was not shared
by plaintiff with anybody except the Vigilance Team of BARC, due to
disclosure of the Hansa Report in broadcast of Republic TV it is causing
tremendous damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, the defendants
had not obtained permission to use Hansa Report (internal report).
Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for temporary injunction restraining
the defendants from referring in their broadcast to any internal
document of the plaintiff termed to by defendants as “Hansa Report” or
any other internal document of the plaintiff.
4. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that there exists
contractual obligation on the plaintiff not to disclose any internal
-- 3 of 10 --
4 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
document to third party, the “Hansa Report” is an internal document
exchanged between the plaintiff Company and BARC, the defendants
were never authorised by the plaintiff Company to use Hansa Report for
any purposes and, therefore, serious damage is caused to the reputation
of the plaintiff after the defendant no.2 disclosed Hansa Report in the
broadcast on Republic TV news channel. According to the Ld. Advocate
for the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no concern with the defendants but the
latter are jeopardising the plaintiff Company’s reputation unnecessarily
and dragging it into controversy for no fault of it.
5. Ld. Advocate for the defendants has resisted the Notice of
Motion contending that the suit itself is not maintainable. His
arguments are multidimensional that is to say right to privacy is not
available to the plaintiff Company in as much as it is the individual
right, BARC is not made party to the suit, blanket injunction against the
defendants can not be granted in terms of prayer clauses. He has further
tendered relevant proof and highlighted that the Hansa Report is
published/ available on several websites which are accessible to the
public at large and the defendants only cannot be restrained as prayed
in the Notice of Motion. Ld. Advocate for the defendants has also
invited my attention to the fact that the plaintiff Company has not made
-- 4 of 10 --
5 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
prayer for damages upon the allegation that the reference of the Hansa
Report in the news channel broadcast resulted in serious damages to
the reputation of plaintiff Company. Ld. Advocate for the defendants has
also argued that freedom of press enshrined under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by granting injunction. Ld.
Counsel for the defendants alleges that this is a shadow suit being filed
at the behest of third party who is named in the Hansa Report and will
be benefited if injunction is granted. Therefore, he claims that balance
of convenience lies in favour of the defendants and plaintiff Company is
not entitled for any ad-interim relief.
6. From the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that
the plaintiff is raising objection to reference of its internal report in the
broadcast of the news channel of defendant no.1. It will be important to
ascertain the character, classification and status of Hansa Report. In
paragraph no.5 of the plaint, it is stated that it is an internal document
as a draft detailing the facts of the investigation against Mr. Vishal
Bhandari, ex-employee of the plaintiff Company for his alleged
inducement to the viewers to watch particular channels and this
document is exchanged between the Vigilance Team of BARC and
plaintiff Company. In this regard, the relationship of the plaintiff
-- 5 of 10 --
6 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
Company and BARC also assumes importance. In paragraph no. 3 of the
plaint, tt is stated that BARC commissioned the plaintiff Company in the
year 2014 to be part of TV Audience Measurement Process by installing
barometers. The dictionary meaning of word “Commission” is “to
formally choose someone to do a special piece of work, or to formally
ask for a special piece of work from someone”. This demontrates that
the plaintiff is not an agent of BARC meaning thereby it is not document
exchanged between the agent and Principal. The plaintiff has not
tendered any non disclosure agreement between itself and BARC about
the confidentiality of the communications
inter se. It is also interesting
to note that the plaintiff has neither filed on record relevant excerpts of
Republic TV news channel dated 10.10.2020 wherein Hansa Report was
referred nor filed the said Hansa Report before the Court. The plaintiff
has not quoted any law which bars use of such documents in the
broadcast of news channels. From all the above, the plaintiff Company
itself is not clear about the character, classification and status of
purported internal document i.e. Hansa Report and it has not filed the
relevant excerpts of news channel to know which report was disclosed
by the defendants.
-- 6 of 10 --
7 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
7. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that the plaintiff
Company is not claiming manipulation of the Hansa Report by the
defendants. The only grievance raised by the plaintiff Company is that
due to frequent reference of Hansa Report by the defendants on its
news channel Republic TV it is causing tremendous damage to the
reputation of the plaintiff Company. Coming to the aspect of “damage to
the reputation of the plaintiff”, there is a single line statement in the
plaint about the same. From this mere statement one can not draw a
conclusion about the quantum of damage, how the reputation of the
plaintiff is damaged and which loss is caused to the plaintiff by
reference of Hansa Report in the broadcast of news channel of
defendants.
8. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants were never
authorized by the plaintiff to use Hansa Report for any purposes and it
is also alleged that the said report could have been accessed by the
defendants without permission or consent of the plaintiff. From this
allegation it is clear that the plaintiff is not challenging veracity of
Hansa Report shown on the news channel and if it is accessed by the
defendants unauthorisedly plaintiff has to blame their employees and
not the defendants for the same. From the plaint allegations it reveals
-- 7 of 10 --
8 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
that after name of Republic TV was used by Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai in his press conference dated 08.10.2020 for trying to
manipulate TRP ratings, the defendants disclosed to Hansa Report on
10.10.2020 in response to the aforesaid allegations. It was natural for
the media house to use its news channel to defend itself against the
charge of manipulation of TRP ratings and disclosing the documents
which support their case of innocence. As shown by the defendants
learned counsel, the Hansa report is already in the public domain in as
much as it is accessible to public on multiple websites, messaging
applications. Therefore, it is not a case that the defendants only
accessed, used and referred Hansa Report in their broadcast but
multiple websites, social media applications have also disclosed the
Hansa report. The plaintiff’s action against the defendants only will not
be prevent disclosure, circulation of Hansa Report. The supposition that
disclosure of Hansa Report by the defendants in their broadcast will
cause damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and use thereof by other
websites and channels will not cause damage to reputation is not
acceptable. Therefore, it cannot be said that reference of Hansa Report
in broadcast of defendants no.1 and 2 was illegal.
-- 8 of 10 --
9 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
9. The plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate even
prima
facie how irreparable loss and / or prejudice it causes by disclosure of
Hansa report by the defendants. Once, the document/ matter is in
public domain it becomes a legitimate subject of comment by the press
and media house among others. Therefore, I do not find merit in the
allegations against the defendants and ad-interim relief is rejected.
Hence, order:
ORDER
1. Ad-interim relief is rejected.
sd/-
(C. V. Marathe)
Judge,
Date : 21.10.2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 21.10.2020
Transcribed on : 21.10.2020
Signed by HHJ on : 22.10.2020
-- 9 of 10 --
10 Ad-Int Order NM-1492/20 SU-1146/20
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 22.10.2020 at 01.10 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe
C.R. no.04
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
21/10/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
22/10/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
22/10/2020
-- 10 of 10 --