Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : March 18, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on : April 09 , 2013 + WP(C)No.1200/2011 INDRAPRASTHA PEOPLE & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rahul Mehra, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Rohit K.Aggarwal, Advocate for R-1 & R-2. Mr.Ashok Desai, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Kunal Tandon, Ms.Nidhi Jain and Mr.Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Advocates for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. We are concerned in the instant writ petition with a social debate; and we need to caution that sometimes an ongoing social debate becomes a major ethical issue with no clear perspective in sight.2. The ageing Indian conservatism blames the intrusion of the Western culture into the Indian ethos for all the problems we find in the societal behaviour. On the other hand, the assertive, new liberal sensibility haughtily blames a monolithic id...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR613
A.P. Shah, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned single Judge. Briefly the facts are that the second plaintiffs are a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and owners of copyrights in various programmes which are produced in India. The third plaintiffs are a body corporate constituted and existing in accordance with the laws of the British Virgin Islands and carry on business as a Satellite TV Channel in Hong kong. The third plaintiffs are the owners of Zee TV. Channel and operate the Zee TV Channel from Hong Kong through the up linking facility and satellite under the third plaintiffs' arrangement with Star TV The first plaintiffs are the exclusive licensees of the copyright in the programmes broadcast on the Zee TV Channel. The second plaintiffs have given an exclusive licence to the third plaintiffs to broadcast these programmes on a 'Zee TV Channel'. This broadcast is made from Hong Kong to the 'Asian Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. 'Comparison lies at the root of modern advertising' says Cornish, W., in his 'Intellectual Property'(4th Edn., Page 656). In McDonalds v. Burgerking (1986) FSR 45 Whitford J., warned that 'advertisements are not to be read as if they are testamentary provision in a will or a clause in some agreement with every word being carefully considered and the words as a whole being compared'. Yet, comparative advertisements have led to a lot of litigation and the case on hand is one.2. C.S. No. 451 of 2008 has been filed by Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned Television advertisements, filed as plaint document No. 3 in a Compact Disk (CD) or telecasting any other advertisement which is disparaging or slandering the Colgate tooth pastes and for damages to the tune of Rs. 10,01,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff has come up with -(i) O.A. No. 493 of 2008 for an inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION:17. H, MARCH2017CS(COMM) 1484/2016 & IA No.13737/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) METRO TYRES LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand & Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Advs. Versus Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Adv. for D-1. ..... Defendants + THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR CORAM:-"HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW1 The plaintiff, a manufacturer of tyres and tubes for two wheelers and three wheelers, instituted this suit i) for restraining the defendant no.2 MRF Limited (MRF), also a manufacturer of tyres and tubes, from issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff of the plaintiff in the advertisement of its products having plagiarised/infringed the copyright of MRF in the advertisement of MRFs products and liability therefor; ii) for restraining the defendant no.2 MRF from promoting unfair competition with reference to plaintiff in any manner; iii) for declaration that such threats of institution of legal proceedings con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom259; 2006(3)ALLMR213; 2006(2)BomCR41; [2006]4CompCas544(Bom)
Lodha R.M., J.1. We heard Mr. M.M. Vashi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.A. Desai, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1 and 10, Mr. I.M. Chhagla, the learned senior Counsel for respondent No. 4, Dr. V.V. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. P.M. Mokashi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader.2. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a teacher who is, inter alia, aggrieved by telecast of adult and obscene films shown by the electronic media and the obscene posters and photographs printed by the print media.3. Various orders came to be passed from time to time by this Court in the Writ Petition.4. On 1st September, 2004 this Court issued following directions : 'In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but, to pass the following directions:(a) We direct Nos. 3 to 9 to give details of 'A' rated films telecast on T.V. Channels during last three months. In the affidavit, they must di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:22. d August, 2017 Decided on:29. h January, 2018 IA43512016 (u/O XXXIX R12 CPC) in CS(OS) 165/2016 GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD ..... Plaintiff Represented by: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Ms. Priya Chauhan, Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advs. versus ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY PVT LTD & ORS Represented by: Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with ..... Defendants Mr. Buddy A Ranganadhan, Ms. Manisha Mehta, Advs. for D-1 to 9. Mr. Raunak Jain, Adv. for D-10. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 Through IA43512016, (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC), GMR Infrastructure Ltd., hereafter referred to as plaintiff, seeks to restrain defendants, their representative, employees, agents, assignees, or any other person acting on their behalf or at their behest from re-broadcasting or uploading, in any manner, in any TV channel/Website owned, operated or controlled by the defendants, the story concerning the plaintiff, which was b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2022 Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.8130 of 2022 And with Civil Appeal No.8131 of 2022 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI This judgment consists of the following sections: A. Facts .................................................................................................................. 4 B. Submissions .................................................................................................... 15 1 C. Issues .............................................................................................................. 19 D. Requirement of security clearance for renewal of permission ......................... 21 E. Judicial Review on procedural grounds ........................................................... 26 E. 1 Principles of natural justice: purpose and content....................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
% *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h February, 2017 + CS(OS) No.459/2016 & IA No.11244/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Siddhanth Sharma, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Munjal, Mr. Arvind Chari and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. Versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. + CS(OS) No.463/2016 & IA No.11360/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) AND HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. Versus PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
% *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h February, 2017 + CS(OS) No.459/2016 & IA No.11244/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Siddhanth Sharma, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Munjal, Mr. Arvind Chari and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. Versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. + CS(OS) No.463/2016 & IA No.11360/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) AND HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. Versus PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
% *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:17. h February, 2017 + CS(OS) No.459/2016 & IA No.11244/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Mr. Siddhanth Sharma, Ms. Eesha Mohapatra, Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Ms. Akanksha Munjal, Mr. Arvind Chari and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. Versus HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. + CS(OS) No.463/2016 & IA No.11360/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) AND HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and Mr. Abhiram Naik, Advs. Versus PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!