Judgment set aside for procedural flaws, suits restored for re-adjudication. Deadlines set for filings and injunctions.

The judgment was set aside due to serious procedural flaws, and the suits were restored for re-adjudication. The court granted two weeks for BCCI and other defendants to file written statements, followed by a week for replications. The applications for interim injunctions were to be re-heard by the learned Single Judge. The court also left open the possibility of settling the issue of proprietary rights as a preliminary issue if it arose purely as a legal issue.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Service of summons and procedural compliance.
2. Interim injunction and its justification.
3. Proprietary rights under the contract between Star India Pvt. Ltd. and BCCI.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety in handling the suits.
5. Legal recognition of proprietary rights in facts and events, specifically in cricket matches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Service of Summons and Procedural Compliance:
The court noted significant procedural lapses, particularly regarding the service of summons. BCCI had not been served in two of the suits (CS(OS) No.2780/2012 and CS(OS) No.3232/2012) and had only been served in CS(OS) No.2722/2012 on November 1, 2012. The court emphasized that BCCI, having a vital stake in the litigation, should have been given 30 days to file a written statement, which was not completed. The procedural flaw was critical as it affected the fairness and completeness of the proceedings.

2. Interim Injunction and Its Justification:
The learned Single Judge granted a limited injunction despite holding that the plaintiff (Star India Pvt. Ltd.) had not established any right under the Copyright Law or Common Law. This contradiction was highlighted as a procedural and substantive flaw. The court noted that the injunction was granted without the completion of pleadings, which was procedurally improper. The decision to grant an injunction while simultaneously dismissing the suits on the merits created a paradoxical situation.

3. Proprietary Rights Under the Contract Between Star India Pvt. Ltd. and BCCI:
The court scrutinized the claim of proprietary rights asserted by Star India Pvt. Ltd. under its contract with BCCI. It was noted that the plaintiff's claim was founded on an assignment of proprietary rights by BCCI. The court emphasized that a declaratory finding on BCCI's proprietary rights should have awaited BCCI's written statement. The procedural flaw here was the premature disposal of the suits without hearing BCCI's position on its proprietary rights.

4. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety in Handling the Suits:
The court criticized the rush in disposing of the suits, driven by the urgency of the upcoming England-India Test Series. It was noted that the learned Single Judge was "virtually bulldozed" into hearing the application for interim injunction without completing the necessary procedural steps. The court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural norms and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

5. Legal Recognition of Proprietary Rights in Facts and Events:
The court raised significant jurisprudential questions about whether facts, such as match updates, could be owned and thus subject to proprietary rights. It was highlighted that this issue required a serious debate and could not be summarily decided. The court noted the need for a detailed examination of whether the common law of "unfair competition" confers any proprietary rights in such facts, especially in the context of cricket matches.

Conclusion:
The judgment was set aside due to serious procedural flaws, and the suits were restored for re-adjudication. The court granted two weeks for BCCI and other defendants to file written statements, followed by a week for replications. The applications for interim injunctions were to be re-heard by the learned Single Judge. The court also left open the possibility of settling the issue of proprietary rights as a preliminary issue if it arose purely as a legal issue.

Administrative Orders:
The suits were listed before the learned Joint Registrar on December 21, 2012, and the applications before the learned Single Judge on January 7, 2013. There was no order as to costs in the appeals.

---