TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Media company cannot appeal ex-parte injunction in defamation case under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC</h1> <h3>Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. Versus Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited</h3> Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. Versus Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Additional District Judge (ADJ).2. Prima facie case for defamation and balance of convenience.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).4. Appellate court's discretion to interfere with the trial court's interlocutory orders.Summary:1. Legality of the Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction:The appellants challenged the ex-parte ad-interim injunction issued by the ADJ on 01.03.2024, which directed them to take down an article titled 'India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee' from their website. The ADJ's order was based on the respondent's claim that the article was defamatory and published with mala fide intentions to malign the respondent's reputation.2. Prima Facie Case for Defamation and Balance of Convenience:The ADJ found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for defamation, noting that the article directly pertained to corporate governance and business operations of the respondent, speculated as truth, and caused economic harm by affecting the stock price. The ADJ concluded that the 'Triple Test' for granting an injunction'prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm'was satisfied.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The appellants argued that the ADJ did not comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, which mandates recording reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction. The appellants also contended that they were not given an opportunity to rebut the respondent's claims, thus denying them a fair hearing.4. Appellate Court's Discretion:The High Court emphasized that appellate courts should not interfere with the trial court's discretionary orders unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Citing 'Wander Ltd & Anr vs Antox India Pvt. Ltd.' and other precedents, the court noted that it would not reassess the material to reach a different conclusion if the trial court's decision was reasonably possible.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ADJ had applied his mind and satisfied himself prima facie that there was enough material to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court found no procedural irregularities or arbitrary exercise of discretion by the ADJ. The appellants were directed to comply with the ADJ's order within three days, and the matter was left to be decided on merits by the ADJ. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all rights and contentions intact.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
