- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Television Eighteen India Ltd. & Anr v. Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd .
Factual and Procedural Background
An additional affidavit was filed in the proceeding, but Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner for the purpose of the hearing on the grant of injunction, did not place any reliance on that affidavit.
The respondent filed a petition before the Court marked as Petition No. 248(C) of 2010, in which a prayer for an interim injunction was made. At the hearing reflected in this opinion, the Court declined to pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner in that petition (described in the opinion as "the petitioner therein i.e., the respondent herein").
Having regard to the doctrine of "amity" and "comity," the Court stated that, on the facts and circumstances of the case and because a similar prayer had been disposed of in Petition No. 220(C) of 2010 by an order dated 27 July 2010, the interim prayer made by the petitioner must succeed.
The opinion records the termination of a Deal memo dated 13 July 2010 and, as a consequence, directs that the respondent be restrained from representing the petitioner except for a transition period until 13 August 2010. The matter was directed to be placed for further directions on 19 August 2010.
The opinion is signed by S.B. Sinha (Chairperson), G.D. Gaiha (Member) and P.K. Rastogi (Member).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an interim injunction should be granted in Petition No. 248(C) of 2010 (the petition in which the respondent was the petitioner).
- How the doctrines of judicial "amity" and "comity" (including respect for prior orders and the avoidance of conflicting interim orders) should influence the grant or refusal of interim relief, particularly where public interest or public law considerations (such as appointments to the IAS) are involved.
- What interim directions should follow in view of the termination of a Deal memo dated 13 July 2010.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Prabhjot Singh Mand & Others v. Bhagwant Singh & Others — 2009 (10) SCALE 316 | Sets out principles concerning injunctions, judicial comity and public interest considerations; the opinion reproduces paras 29–32 which discuss prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and special considerations in public law matters. | Quoted and relied upon to explain the framework for deciding interim injunctions and to underline the relevance of comity/amity and public-interest considerations in the present matter. |
| M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan [(2006) 8 SCC 367] | When considering an injunction, a court should consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; the plaintiffs' contention must be bona fide and the question must be serious. | Cited (within the extract from Prabhjot Singh Mand) as the authoritative statement of factors to be weighed when granting or refusing injunctions; these factors inform the Court's approach to the present interim application. |
| Transmission Corpn. Of AP Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. [(2006) I SCC 540] | Referenced in the context of public interest and consequences of interim orders — particularly in situations involving public employment/appointments. | Referred to support the proposition that appointment to IAS is a matter of public interest and that interim orders in such public law cases require different considerations and regard to comity. |
| India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 510 | Discusses conflict and loss of jurisdiction and the doctrine that a court ordinarily will avoid issuing an injunction that conflicts with orders of another court; reproduces an authoritative passage from a treatise on injunctions. | Quoted to illustrate judicial comity — that coordinate courts will usually avoid issuing conflicting injunctions and will not ordinarily order a party to violate a lawful order of another court. |
| Morgan Securities & Credit Pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 683 | Referenced as supporting authority on principles that a court should avoid passing orders that would make a party violate an order passed by another court. | Cited as an additional supporting authority for the general proposition of judicial comity and restraint in issuing conflicting interim orders. |
| "A Treatise on the Law Governing Injunctions" by Spelling and Lewis | Explains Section 8: conflict and loss of jurisdiction; judicial comity — courts of concurrent jurisdiction usually refuse to issue a second injunction to the same parties on the same subject-matter to avoid complications. | Quoted (as reproduced in the India Household decision) to exemplify the doctrinal basis for declining to grant conflicting injunctions and to support the Court's reliance on comity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted procedural facts first: an additional affidavit was on record but not relied upon by the petitioner's senior counsel. The respondent's petition (Petition No. 248(C) of 2010) sought an interim injunction; at the hearing the Court declined to grant an injunction in favour of the petitioner in that petition (identified in the opinion as the respondent herein).
Despite the initial declination, the Court considered the doctrines of "amity" and "comity" and the fact that a similar interim prayer had been disposed of in Petition No. 220(C) of 2010 by an order dated 27 July 2010. Applying these considerations, and relying on the authorities quoted (which set out the factors relevant to granting injunctions — prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury — and the principle that courts should avoid issuing conflicting orders), the Court concluded that the interim prayer by the petitioner should succeed in the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court emphasised the special character of public law disputes (for example, appointments to the IAS) where public interest requires that interim orders be considered with additional care. The Court relied on the cited precedents and the treatise passage to underscore that conflicting interim orders from coordinate forums can create complications and that judicial comity ordinarily disfavors such conflict.
Finally, having regard to the termination of a Deal memo dated 13 July 2010, the Court issued an operative interim direction restraining the respondent from representing the petitioner except for a defined transition period, and listed the matter for further directions on 19 August 2010.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The respondent is restrained from representing the petitioner except for the transition period until 13 August 2010.
Additional operative steps recorded by the Court include placing the matter for further directions on 19 August 2010.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The restraint order limits the respondent's ability to represent the petitioner, except during the specified transition period up to 13 August 2010.
- Procedural impact: The matter is to be listed for further directions on 19 August 2010, indicating that the Court anticipated further hearings or orders.
- No broader precedent is expressly stated to have been set by this short opinion beyond the Court's application of established principles of injunction law and judicial comity as reflected in the authorities it cites.
An additional affidavit has been filed, upon which no reliance is being placed by Dr. A.M Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner for the purpose of hearing in the matter of grant of injunction.
Indisputably, the respondent has filed a petition before us marked as Petition No. 248(C) of 2010. In that petition a prayer for Interim injunction was made. Today we have declined to pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner therein i.e, the respondent herein.
Having regard to the doctrine of ‘amity’ and ‘comity’ we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interim prayer made by the petitioner must succeed as also for the reason that we have disposed of a similar prayer made by the petitioner herein in petition No. 220(C) of 2010 by an order dated 27 July, 2010.
In Prabhjot Singh Mand & Others v. Bhagwant Singh & Others — 2009 (10) SCALE 316, it has been held as under:—
“29. — This Court in M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan [(2006) 8 SCC 367] opined: While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only a mere triable issue.”
30. — The Tribunal refused to pass an interim order but observed that any action taken would be subject to ultimate result of he original application. Thus, in a situation of this nature, the High court should have considered the question as to whether the respondent No. 1 had any prima facie case or is there any balance of convenience in his favour. It is not a case where the dispute is between the private parties. Appointment to the cadre of IAS is a matter of public interest. An interim order involving public interest in public law cases must receive different considerations.
31. — The effect of the interim order vis-à-vis the clarificatory order passed by the High Court in the earlier writ application resulted in a piquant situation in the sense that whereas the appellants were entitled to be promoted to IAS, the Union of India in their counter affidavit raise the questions of difficulties contending that unless the posts fall vacant, no appointment therein could be made. It may be true that when an employee is reverted to a lower post, he would suffer civil consequences but then it was necessary not only in public interest, but also to give effect to the doctrine of comity and/or amity. The appellants were entitled to be promoted as of right subject to the result of writ petition. They could not be denied promotion by another interim order passed in favour of the first respondent directing that they could not be reverted as a result whereof the vacancy would not occur.
(See Transmission Corpn. Of AP Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. [(2006) I SCC 540])
32. — This Court in India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd (2007) 5 SCC 510] noticed”
“17. This aspect of the matter has been considered in A Treatise on the Law Governing injunctions by Spelling and Lewis wherein it is stated:
“Section 8. Conflict and loss of jurisdiction — Where a court having general jurisdiction and having acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter has issued an injunction, a court of concurrent jurisdiction will usually refuse to interfere by issuance of a second injunction. There is no established rule of exclusion which would deprive a court of jurisdiction to issue an injunction because of the issuance of an injunction between the same parties appertaining to the same subject-matter, but there is what may properly be termed a judicial comity on the subject. And even where it is a case of one court having refused to grant an injunction while such refusal does not exclude another coordinate court or Judge from jurisdiction, yet the granting of the injunction by a second judge may lead to complications and retaliatory action……”
19. A court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another court.”
(See also Morgan Securities & Credit pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 683)
In view of the termination of the Deal memo dated 13 July, 2010, we direct that the respondent be restrained from representing the petitioner except for the transition period till 13 August, 2010.
Put up the matter on 19.8.2010 for further directions.
…………………J
(S.B Sinha)
Chairperson
…………………
(G.D Gaiha)
Member
………………
(P.K Rastogi)
Member
Alert