Delhi High Court
Gaurav Garg vs Aly Morani & Ors. on 14 February, 2011
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007
Date of Decision : 14.02.2011
GAURAV GARG ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra &
Mr. Nitin Bhatia, Advs.
Versus
ALY MORANI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv.
with
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Adv.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral )
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioners under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Aly Morani,
Mohomed Morani of Clineyug Films Pvt. Ltd. It may be
pertinent here to mention that Mohomed Morani has been
shown as defendant no. 2 as well as the defendant no. 3 as the
official of M/s Clineyug Films Pvt. Ltd.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the
petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain
the defendants from infringing plaintiff special right as author.
It is alleged that the plaintiff as an employee of M/s Cineyug
Films Pvt. Ltd. has been associated with the development of IPL
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 1 of 7
Awards event in which the respondents did not acknowledge the
contributions of the petitioner although he had contributed to
the same. It may be pertinent here to mention that the
petitioner was not claiming any copyright in the said
development of the IPL Award under Section 57 of the Copyright
Act to sustain but the suit was filed in respect of his plea of
contributing to the IPL Award. The respondent no. 3 filed its
written statement and the application under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 CPC which was heard on 21.05.2010. It is alleged that
the defendant nos. 1 to 3, on a specific query by the Court made
a statement that no employee, including the Directors of the
defendant no. 3 i.e. defendant nos. 1 and 2 are going to be
accorded any credit for the event in any form, including by way
of credit scroll appearing at the end of the broadcast of the
programme. It is stated that a specific statement in this regard
was made by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 3 before
the Court. It is now alleged that during the broadcast of the
event on 23.05.2010, the plaintiff was shocked to see that credit
scroll at the end of the programme broadcast carried due credit
to number of individuals almost about 27 people, and therefore,
it is alleged that the defendants have committed the contempt of
Court by making such a statement. To facilitate reference, the
relevant averments made in the contempt petition are as under:
"Para 6. During the hearing of the aforesaid
applications before this Hon'ble Court on May 21,
2010, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 on a specific
directed query from this Hon'ble Court, made a
statement that no employee, including the Directors
of the defendant no. 3, i.e., defendant nos. 1 and
2, are going to be accorded any credit for the event
in any form, including by way of credit scroll
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 2 of 7
appearing at the end of the broadcast of the
programme. A specific statement was made that
only the defendant no. 3 company is going to be
accorded credit for the event/programme
Para 7. It was based on the said statement as
also on the basis of other reasons in order dated
May 21, 2010, that this Hon'ble Court was pleased
to dismiss plaintiff's application for interim
injunction being I.A. No. 5900 of 2010.
Para 8. That during the broadcast of the even on
May 23, 2010, the plaintiff was shocked to see
that credit scroll at the end of the programme
broadcast carried due credit to the following
individuals, among others;
1. Aly Morani, Scripted & Directed by
2. Shirin Morani, Artist Manager
3. Prachi Parab, Associate Events & PR
4. Arvind Singh, Costume Manager
5. Karim Morani, Scripted & Directed by
6. Puneet Rege, Logistics head
7. Raju Ghare, Hospitality Manager
8. Elaine Fernandes, Senior Executive
9. Mohomed Morani, Scripted & Directed by
10. Alpa Mehta, Creative Head
11. Anand Dawda, Production Head
12. Priyanka Soorma, Project Head
13. Meetali Majethia, Creative Associate
14. Neelam Soorma, Scripted & Directed by
15. Manoj Batham, Production Executives
16. Deepak Mishra, Production Executives
17. Dilip, Production Executives
18. Mazhar Nadiawala, Scripted & Directed
by
19. Vishal Parekh, Production Manager
20. Kunal Taparia, Senior Executive
21. Flona D'Souza, Senior Executive
22. Gargi Pawar, Senior Executive
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 3 of 7
23. Salim Shaikh, Production Executives
24. Shetal Modi, Audio Visuals by
25. Deepak Rajodia, Production Executives
26. Mitesh Kurani, Group CFO
27. Farooque Shaikh, Production Executives
A CD carrying the recording of the event including
the credit scroll at the end of the event is filed in
the present proceedings as Annexure-A.
Para 9. The plaintiff immediately verified the said
names with the list of employees of defendant no.
3 that was sent to the plaintiff's colleague in
August, 2009. The plaintiff was further shocked
when the verification resulted in the conclusion
that the said list of 27 individuals included
defendant nos. 1 and 2 and that the others are
employees of defendant no. 3. A copy of the said
e-mail dated August 5, 2009 along with the list of
employees sent to the plaintiff's associate is filed
along with this application as Annexure-B.
Para 10. It is also noteworthy that the
defendants have a practice of giving credit to
professionals, consultants, vendors, agents and
other persons involved with an event that the said
defendants organize, including their employees
having worked on the said event. This is
evidenced from the recordings of other events
carried out by the defendants i.e. Star Screen
Award and Zee Cine Awards, respectively, which
are filed along with this application as Annexure-
C".
3. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the petitioners want
contempt proceedings to be initiated and further seeks a
direction to the defendant nos. 1 and 3 to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners by way of exemplary damages for
their egregious misconduct and also publish statement of
apology for their conduct in leading newspapers like Times of
India, Dainik Jagran and Dainik Bhaskar.
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 4 of 7
4. Reply to the contempt petition contesting the claim of the
petitioners has been filed. Thereafter the plaintiff has also filed
the rejoinder.
5. The Court is purposely not referring to the stand of the
respondents or the averments made in the rejoinder as it does
not feel necessity of the same at the threshold when the case is
to be considered as to whether the contempt notice which has
been issued must culminate into issuance of formal notice as to
why the contempt may not be initiated against the respondents
or as to whether the notice purported to have been issued calling
for their response, deserves to be discharged.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
Mr. Anil Sapra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents
and have also gone through the averments made in the
application as well as the order passed by the Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
contended that the respondent's counsel has misled the Court
by making a statement that no credit scroll was displayed at the
end of the IPL Award event acknowledging the contribution of
different persons while as factually this statement of the learned
counsel has been found to be incorrect. This is stated to be so
because the petitioner is claiming himself to be a person
associated with the development of concept of IPL Award event
in which he had moral legitimate rights, although he may not
have copyright, which deserve to be protected under Section 57
of the Copyright Act and therefore a 'civil contempt' prima facie
against the defendants is made out.
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 5 of 7
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel that Section 2(b) of the contempt of Court Act defines
the 'civil contempt' as under:
"Civil contempt means willful disobedience to to any
judgment, decree, direction order, writ or other process of a
court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court"
9. A perusal of the aforesaid definition of the civil contempt clearly
shows that before initiation of any civil contempt action, there
must be willful disobedience of Court order, judgment, decree,
direction etc. While as in the instant case, there is no order,
direction, decree, judgment of which the violation is alleged to be
committed by the respondents. The other aspect of the matter
is that if there is an undertaking given to the Court which is
accepted and that undertaking is violated and it is shown that
the said violation is willful then also contempt is made out.
10. In the instant case, there is no such order passed by the Court
nor any such statement recorded much less an undertaking,
which can be made basis for initiating of this action. There is
absolutely no question of violation of the said undertaking by
the respondents as none has been given.
11. What is being alleged by the plaintiff are oral statements to the
Court and which do not form part of the record. In the absence
of their being anything in writing by way of an undertaking or an
order or a direction it is not open to initiate an action for
contempt against the respondents. In my considered view, it
will be a gross abuse of processes of law. Further, it is not every
disobedience, which tantamount to civil contempt. A
disobedience must be willful, deliberate and contumacious
CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 6 of 7
which has been done with a view to lower the dignity of the
Court whereupon the Court will step in to protect his Majesty.
In the instant case, the question of there being a disobedience
much less the same being wilful does not arise because there
was no judgment, order, decree, direction or an undertaking
having been given by the respondents much less the same being
disobeyed.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered view
that prima facie no case of contempt is made out against the
respondents, and therefore, the notices issued are discharged.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 14, 2011 KP CCP (O) 73/2010 in CS(OS) NO. 766/2007 Page 7 of 7