Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.8. It was further submitted that the appellant is the first company in India to have launched a product using this new formulation. It is stated that presently, only the appellant is offering products with this formulation in India.

It is claimed that the said formula performs better than the Transfluthrin formulation.

2.9. It was submitted that in order to convey the effectiveness of its product, the appellant launched advertisements (hereinafter referred to as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 “subject advertisements”) in respect of the said product on 20th March 2023, a Television Commercial (TVC) in multiple languages (including Tamil) across India on multiple platforms including Television and Digital Media such as YouTube, Instagram etc., apart from Print Media. The advertisement made the following claims:

4.4. It may be relevant to note that the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.387 of 20002 found that there is a redressal mechanism for airing grievance with regard to Television Programmes including advertisements while referring to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and its Rules while recording concerns expressed over the need to coalesce the mechanism within the framework of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt only with the redressal mechanism under the Cable Television Network Act / Rules and did not cover other Digital Space such as YouTube, Instagram etc. It is important to note that there was consensus amongst the parties to the appeal that there is no law governing advertisements on Digital Space such as YouTube, Instagram etc. It thus appears that the remedy that may be available against slander of goods in Digital Space / Media 1 Rule 2(1)(i), Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules, 2021 2 Common Cause (A.REGD. SOCIETY) v. Union of India & others, (2018) 13 SCC 440 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 presently may only be in tort.
4.5. Against this background, a reading of the complaint of the 2 nd Respondent and the order of the 1st Respondent thereon would show that both the complaint and the order deals with the subject advertisement and its broadcast not just in Cable Television Network, instead the order of the 1 st Respondent covers the complaint against the subject advertisements across all Media including YouTube, Television, Instagram and Print Media and the order is made issuing directions with regard to the subject advertisements across Digital Media such as YouTube, Instagram etc., apart from Television and Print Media. The order is a composite order which covers not only broadcast of subject advertisement in Cable Television but also its broadcast across all media including You Tube, Television, Instagram and Print Media which would show that the order is traceable to the ASCI Code and not the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act / Rules. As a matter of fact, there was consensus amongst the parties to the appeal that the order of the 1st Respondent is traceable to ASCI Code and not Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act /Rules.
(ii) Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 335 “37. From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in a catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the appellant-petitioner would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, the court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless it must be a “part of cause of action”, nothing less than that.” 7.8.Now having examined the traditional views on cause of action it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 should be borne in mind that the subject advertisement is broadcast in multiple platforms/ media including Television (Multi Media), Digital Media such as YouTube, Instagram etc. The learned judge had observed / doubted if the suit against infringement of fundamental right is maintainable. We find this contrary to settled position that a Civil Court would have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature including cases where the complaint is infringement of a fundamental right.6 7.9. Before proceeding to examine the order of the learned Judge insofar as it finds that the suit is without jurisdiction it may be relevant to give a broad overview of the complexities that may arise in view of the fact that the subject advertisement is broadcast in multiple platforms and media including multimedia (Television), Digital Media such as YouTube, Instagram, OTT etc., using Internet.