Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Smt. Supriya Shrinate, the Chairperson of Social Media and Digital Platforms of the Indian National Congress, challenged an ex-parte order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Division, Bangalore, in Commercial Original Suit No.1594/2022. The suit was instituted by M/s MRT Music, a partnership firm producing and distributing sound recordings, alleging copyright infringement. The plaintiff claimed that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, a political initiative of the Indian National Congress, two videos were posted on the official Twitter handles of the Indian National Congress and Bharat Jodo Yatra, with background music similar to the soundtrack of the film KGF Chapter 2, over which the plaintiff held copyright. The plaintiff sought permanent and mandatory injunctions and filed several interlocutory applications. The trial court, without hearing the defendants, passed an ad-interim mandatory injunction directing Twitter Inc. to remove the links and block the social media handles. The appellant preferred this commercial appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, contending that the ex-parte order was passed in gross violation of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, as the court did not record any reasons for dispensing with notice, and the relief granted was disproportionate. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, arguing that an ex-parte order is not appealable until the trial court fails to dispose of the application within 30 days, relying on a single judge decision. The Division Bench, after hearing senior counsels, framed three points for consideration: maintainability of the appeal, justification for granting the ex-parte mandatory injunction without reasons, and justification for dispensing with notice. On the first point, the Court held that the appeal is maintainable, distinguishing the single judge’s ruling and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 695, and the plain language of Section 13(1A) which makes any ‘order’ of the Commercial Court appealable. The provided judgment excerpt ends after the discussion on maintainability and framing of the remaining issues, without a final adjudication on the substantive challenge to the ex-parte injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Interim Injunctions – Ex-Parte Injunction – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rule 3 – Appeal Maintainability – The appellant challenged an ex-parte mandatory injunction granted against its social media handles, arguing that the trial court failed to record reasons for dispensing notice as required under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The respondent contended that an appeal against an ex-parte order is not maintainable until the trial court disposes of the application within 30 days. The High Court held that the appeal is maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which makes any ‘order’ appealable, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 695, which supports the view that an appeal against an ex-parte injunction order is not barred. (Paras 15-17) B) Civil Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Ex-Parte Mandatory Injunction – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rule 3 – Non-recording of Reasons – The appellant specifically argued that the trial court, while passing an ex-parte interim mandatory injunction to remove and block its Twitter handles, did not record any reasons for dispensing with notice, contrary to the mandatory proviso to Rule 3. The appellant cited precedent to establish that non-compliance with Rule 3 vitiates the order. The High Court did not reach a final decision on this point in the provided excerpt, but framed the issue for consideration along with the maintainability question. (Paras 8-14, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal is maintainable? Whether the trial court was justified in granting an ex-parte interim mandatory injunction without recording reasons as required by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC? Whether the trial court was justified in dispensing with notice without demonstrating that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay?
Final Decision
The Court held that the appeal is maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which allows an appeal against any ‘order’, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Venkata Subbaiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 695. The excerpt provided ends before a decision on the remaining issues concerning the validity of the ex-parte injunction for non-recording of reasons.
Law Points
- ex parte injunction must comply with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
- court must record reasons for dispensing notice
- appeal against interim order maintainable under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act 2015
- mandatory injunction ex parte not justified without reasons.
