Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge vide which the application for appointment was dismissed on the ground that the order refusing appointment does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate rights of the parties.


The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and cultivation of the suit’s land. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Code, 1908 for the appointment of a Local Commissioner for bringing on record the existing position of the suit’s property.

The defendant- respondent contested that the application was filed just to delay the proceedings. It was also argued that there was no locus standi and cause of action to file the application.

Hereafter, the application was dismissed and the plaintiff- petitioner sought revision of the said order.


Is Revision maintainable against an order dismissing an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, 1908?

Observation and Analysis:

The Court relied on the judgment of Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal [1990(2) PLR 191] where it was held that refusing to appoint a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, 1908, has nothing to do with the rights of the parties. It is the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commission, then no right of any party can be said to be prejudiced as such.

The Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge.

The Court further held that no revision will be maintainable against an order dismissing an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner as it does not decide any issue nor does it adjudicate any rights of the parties for the purpose of the suit.

[Harchand v. Karambir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 1777, decided on 18-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts


Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J. issued interim directions for protecting the rights of the plaintiff company ‘Sony Ten Network' of channels to broadcast the forthcoming India England International Cricket Series 2022 in the licensed territories.

The instant petition was filed by Plaintiff who owns and operates the “SONY TEN Network” of channels and has acquired an exclusive license from England and Wales Cricket Board Limited (ECB) to broadcast/ communicate the said Sporting Event to the public in the territories of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar and the Maldives hereinafter, “Licensed Territory seeking an order of permanent injunction against the Defendants to restrain them from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff in the forthcoming India-England International Cricket Series 2022.

The plaintiff has acquired the following rights in respect of the Sporting Event:

i. Exclusive television rights (live, delayed and repeat basis), digital rights (mobile rights and internet rights) as well as exclusive radio rights within the Licensed Territory;

ii. Exclusive Clip Rights, Audio Rights, Public Screening Rights as well as the right to make programmes relating to the matches and Highlights Programmes;

iii. Exclusive right to create contemporaneous textual commentary of the matches on its mobile platform and website;

iv. Right to sub-license the Media Rights.

The Court observed that that Plaintiff has exclusive media rights from ECB and thus a prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff to grant protection against the illegal transmission, broadcasting, communication, telecast and unauthorized distribution of any event, match, footage, clip, audio-video, audio of the Sporting. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and it is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury, if an injunction is not granted in its favour.

The Court granted interim directions as follows:

“(i) Defendants No. 1 to 39 are restrained from, in any manner, hosting, streamlining, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public or facilitating the same on their websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content, programme and show or event in which the Plaintiff has copyright.

(i)(a) This injunction shall also operate in respect of the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites, which are put in play by Defendants No. 1 to 39 to grant access to the websites.

(ii) Defendants No. 58 to 89 are directed to block access to the websites of Defendants No. 1 to 39.

(ii)(a) This direction will also operate qua mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites, which have their roots in the websites of Defendants No. 1 to 39.

(iii) Defendants No. 40 to 57 and 92 are restrained from, in any manner to host, stream, reproduce, distribute, broadcast, make available to the public and/or communicate to the public any unauthorized and unlicensed reproduction or broadcast on the local channels or through other means of various copyrighted content, including but not limited to the matches of the said sporting events through cable network.

(iv) Defendants No. 90 and 91 shall issue necessary directions/notifications calling upon various ISPs, in general, to block access to the websites of Defendants No. 1 to 39 as also qua mirror/ redirect/ alphanumeric websites of the said Defendants.

(iv) Plaintiff is given liberty to file an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to array other rogue websites if the same are discovered after the issuance of the instant interim order. The purpose being that the Court, in these cases, needs to dynamically monitor such egregious illegality and, if necessary, pass interim orders to restrain similar rogue websites from illegally streaming the creative content in which the plaintiffs have a copyright.”

The Court further considered it appropriate to appoint Mr. Sarvan Kumar as the Local Commissioner who on receiving information from the Plaintiff, are required to undertake the following steps:

(i) to ascertain whether these Defendants are unauthorisedly distributing or transmitting/ communicating/ redistributing the said Sporting Events without the licence of the Plaintiff;

(ii) to search the property and inspect/ seize the equipment(s) being used for unauthorized distribution or redistribution and take the same into custody, if in case they are found to broadcast, distribute or communicate to the public, the contents of either of the events or part thereof and upon preparing the inventory and sealing them, release the same on Superdari to the said Defendants;

(iii) to seize books of accounts including ledgers, cash books etc. in the said premises of the defendants if they are found unauthorizedly distributing or transmitting the said sporting events. The Local Commissioner will be at liberty to break open locks, if so required;

(iv) to make a sample recording of illegal transmission, if possible and take the photographs.

[Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited v. F1.MyLiveCricket.Live, CS (COMM) 439 of 2022, decided on 29-06-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Abhishek Malhotra, Atmaja Tripathy, Sapna Chaurasia, Pritha Mitra and Karen A. Baretto, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsDistrict CourtTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh: The Coram of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Padma Pandey, Rajesh K. Arya (Members) observed that a service provider cannot state that it was not obliged to provide any record/bills to the consumer, since a person who is spending hefty amount to receive the services has the right to know where, how and in what manner the money was spent.

Complainant had paid an amount of Rs 27 lakhs to the OPs for the construction of a residential house.

Regarding the completion of work, the complainant asked the OPs to provide the details of the bill, but to no avail and as a result, the complainant hired a professional to assess the work done.

After the assessment, it was found that the value of completion of work done by the OPs came to be Rs 16,77,629 whereas they received an amount of Rs 27 lakhs. Due to which the complainant stopped the work.

OPs extracted Rs 10,22, 371 extra from the complainant causing him financial loss and also failed to complete the construction work as per the agreement and demanded more amount.

In view of the above background, the Complainant sought directions to OPs to refund the excess amount.

OP’s Pleading

Opposite Parties pleaded that as per the agreement, the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs 62,84,800, Since 60% of the work was completed, the complainant was supposed to pay an amount of Rs 37,73, 880, out of which only Rs 27 lakhs were paid. OPs also submitted that the person who did the assessment was not an expert. Also, the complainant befooled the OP that his loan was going to get sanctioned and hence the OPs should continue the construction work, even in the absence of payment of remaining amount.

OPs also submitted that they were not obliged to provide the detail of bills for the said construction work.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Moot Question: Whether the OPs had received an excess amount from the complainant towards partial construction work of house done on his plot or not?

Bench opined that to come to any definite conclusion, an independent person qualified in the said field was required to be appointed to give his report resultantly, a Local Commissioner was appointed.

Unfair Trade Practice

Commission noted from the report of the Local Commissioner that through the material in the building and structure raised was as per the required specifications, yet the value of work which has been done at the site came to be Rs 15,04,630 only, whereas, on the other hand, the opposite parties have already received an amount of Rs 27 lacs from the complainant, which act clearly amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.

Deficiency in Service

Adding to its analysis, Bench also stated that the complainant was right in seeking bills from the OPs. In fact, by not providing the bill, OPs were deficient in providing service.

OPs cannot wriggle out of the situation by stating that they were not obliged to provide any record/bills to the complainant, as the same was not agreed to between the parties, because every person who is shredding hefty amount from his pocket towards the services being provided to him, has the right to know as to how, where and in what manner, the same has been utilized.


Commission directed OPs to refund the amount of Rs 11, 95, 370 received in excess along with 12% interest within a period of 30 days.

To pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs 50,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days

If the complainant had availed housing loan from any bank/financial institution for making payment towards price of plot in question, it shall have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same was due to be paid by the complainant. [Mubarak Masih v. Gautam Construction Company, Complaint Case No. 57 of 2019, decided on 27-05-2021]

Advocates before the Commission:

Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate for the complainant.

N.K. Nagar, Advocate for the opposite parties.