Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Counsel for the defendant no.1 has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court on 8th January, 2016 in W.P.(C) 5171/2011 filed by the petitioner, where the defendant no.1 was also a party. Similar plea as has been taken in the present case, was also taken on behalf of the plaintiff in the aforesaid Writ Petition, however, the Writ Court was of the view that Court cannot grant any pre-emptive relief restraining ASCI from passing any order, which it is entitled to with respect to other advertisements of the petitioner and that the petitioners will have to avail appropriate remedies with respect to an order that may be passed by defendant no.1/ASCI regarding any other advertisement taken out by the petitioner.

7. The relevant observations of the Court in in W.P.(C) 5171/2011 are set out below:

"8. I am of the opinion that there is no need to keep these petitions pending any longer. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.2 ASCI that neither of the two petitioners, notwithstanding the stay orders granted by this Court, are using the advertisement with respect whereto the impugned orders of the respondent No.2 ASCI were passed and thus the writ petitions have also become infructuous.

9. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5171/2011 contends that though the petitioner therein is presently not using the said advertisement but can use the same advertisement at any time in future and that the tagline to which objection is taken by ASCI can be in any other advertisement and thus the petition cannot be said to have become infructuous. She further states that the petition is required to be decided also because the respondent No.2 ASCI repeatedly objects to the advertisements brought out by the petitioner from time to time.

CS(OS) 2806/2015                                                Page
                                                           Signing      3 of 5 18:54:47
                                                                   Date:22.11.2022

10. As far as the contention aforesaid, of the respondent No.2 ASCI repeatedly interfering in the advertisements of the petitioner is concerned, this Court cannot grant any pre- emptive relief restraining the respondent No.2 ASCI from passing any order which it is entitled to with respect to any other advertisement of the petitioner. The petitioner will have to avail of appropriate remedies with respect to order if any of ASCI concerning any other advertisement of the petitioner.