1 CONP27.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 464 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 448 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 305 OF 2010 Phonographic Performance Ltd., Mumbai. ... Petitioners. V/s. Nerul Gymkhana. ... Respondent. Mr. Rahul Chitnis i/b. Medialexicon for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd DECEMBER 2010. P.C. :- The Petitioners allege that the order passed by this Court on 30th December 2009 was violated by the present Respondent. 2. According to the Petitioners in violation of the order the present Respondent played certain songs. It is the case of the Petitioners that the fact that an order was passed against the present Respondent was communicated to Respondent. 2 CONP27.10.sxw According to the Petitioners, the said fact of passing of order was communicated to Respondent by letter dated 30th December 2009. Perusal of the letter shows that a copy was served. There is nothing on record to show that an authenticated/certified copy was served. If this be so, the Petitioners have not complied with minimum requirements of serving an authenticated copy upon a party to whom an order of injunction is sought to be communicated. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that one of their Executive by name Mr. Sanket Singhvi was appointed to remain present at the party which was arranged by Respondent and he was instructed to note the events which would take place in the said party and ascertain whether any violation of the order is being done by Respondent. In support of this stand, letter dated 30th December 2009 is shown to have been addressed and the ticket/entry pass is said to be delivered to him. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent did play certain songs which the Respondent could not have done on account of order of injunction. Mr. Sanghvi has informed the Petitioners about the alleged violation of the order by letter dated 4th January 2010. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Chitnis appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that this record produced by the Petitioners is sufficient to support the stand of the Petitioners that the Respondent had committed contempt. 3 CONP27.10.sxw 5. After having perused the aforesaid record, I am not inclined to accept the stand of the Petitioners that the Respondent should be brought before the Court for the purposes of facing the allegations of contempt. The reasons are as under :- 6. In the first place the Petitioners did not serve upon the Respondent an authenticated copy or a certified copy of the order passed against the Respondent. The service of the simple copy cannot be accepted. 7. So far as the presence of Mr. Sanghvi at the said party and his word that certain songs were played in violation of the order, I hold that the word of Mr. Sanghvi alone cannot be accepted as he happened to be an employee of the Petitioners. Said Mr. Sanghvi will have to be treated as an interested person. The allegations of contempt are not supported by an affidavit of an independent person who has no grudge against the Respondent. 8. Even if the word of said Mr. Sanghvi is to be accepted in support of the case of the Petitioners, in my view, it was necessary for the Petitioners to create an authenticate record to show that the Respondent violated the order. This could have been easily done by the Petitioners by filing a complaint with the Police Station within whose jurisdiction the songs were played, because playing of such a songs would also may 4 CONP27.10.sxw amount to an offence in violation of the order of the Court. That would have had the effect of confirming the statement of Mr. Sanghvi. In the Petition, no such complaint is annexed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the said complaint was filed. In the absence of copy of the same alongwith the Petition, one cannot come to the conclusion that such a complaint to the Police was filed. 9. In my view, in the absence of production of necessary prima-facie material to show that the complaint came to be lodged, the stand of the Petitioners cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the above, as of today, there is no sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the Respondent has violated the orders of the Court. Hence, the Petitioners have failed to make out the prima-facie case and as such, the Contempt Petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 11. Hence, following order is passed :- (i) The Contempt Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)