IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1087 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO. 993 OF 2005 Deligent Media Corporation Ltd. ... Plaintiff Vs. Bennett Colemn & Co. Ltd. & Ors. ....Defendants ----- Shri R.D. Suvarna for Plaintiff Mr. C.D. Patel i/b. Kanga and Co. for Defendants ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff is seeking following relief: that this Hon'ble Court be please direct the Defendants to forthwith issue clarification to the effect that this Hon'ble Court did not quash the plea of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants and in particular the Maharashtra Times and the same may be published in the same prominence in which the said article was published on 6th April, 2005. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the suit against the Defendants seeking damages to the tune of Rs.10 crores and also for a perpetual order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants from issuing advertisement at Exhibit B-1 to B-5 and /or any other similar advertisements so as to infringe the Plaintiff's copyrights in the artistic work, literature work and photographs comprised in the Plaintiff's advertising campaign etc. In this suit, initially the Plaintiff took out the Notice of Motion No.1013 of 2005. This Court by order dated 4th April, 2005, recorded the statement of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants. The Defendants through their Counsel made a statement that the Defendants did not intend to nor were desirous of repeating the impugned advertisement or advertisements with similar concept which are the subject matter of the present suit in any of the newspaper or media pending decision of this suit. In view of this statement, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff did not press the Notice of Motion and, accordingly, the Notice of Motion was disposed of. 3. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that after the said order was passed, the news item apearing in Time of India on 6th April, 2005 under the caption High Court quashes plea against the Maharashtra Times ad . Copy of the paper cutting is annexed to the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submits that the said article is misleading and amounts to interference with the administration of justice by this Court. 5. No reply has been filed by the Defendants to this Notice of Motion. By order dated 17th March,2006, this Court was pleased to direct that this Notice of Motion should be heard along with suit itsef. 6. In my view, it is not necessary to keep this Notice of Motion pending. It is obvious that the Notice of Motion which was taken out by the Plaintiff vide Notice of Motion No. 1013 of 2005 was not pressed in view of the statement made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants. Prima facie, therefore, the Defendants were not justified in publishing an article in the newspaper stating therein that High Court quashes plea against the Maharashtra Times Ad. The said article, prima facie, is misleading. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate if the Defendants are directed to issue a clarification in terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of Motion is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of Motion is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)