( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an interlocutory order in a copyright action. The order is dated 30th of June, 2003, when His Lordship refused injunction to the plaintiffs/appellants who are also the appellants before us. However, the order directed a furnishing of bank guarantee to the extent of rs. 25 lakhs, such guarantee to be given by the respondents.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed in Calcutta on or about the 7th of May, 2003 by the plaintiffs, who'are the authoress and her husband of the book named "a Woman of Substance". The copyright in that book has been, or is likely to be, allegedly infringed. Claims for infringement are also made with regard to two sequels of the said book and the serialised television version thereof which were produced by the authoress' husband namely the 2nd appellant.

( 3 ) THE complaint is against a serial called "karishma-The Miracle of destiny" which has been financed and is quite ready to be produced and televised by the 1st respondent who are a public limited company. They bear the Sahara name, and under that name there are several business undertakings running in India.

( 4 ) THE respondents say that they intend to televise many more than two hundred episodes, in the evenings, not covering weekends starting from 9. 30 p. M. According to them, eighty episodes have been completed and are ready to be televised. They say that they have spent a lot of money over two years for this project and the expenses are to be counted in rupees tens of crores and have gone to 100 crores and more. The expected annual turnover out of the serial including advertising is expected by Rs. 75 crores. They have already taken advance of Rs. 11 crores from intending advertising agents. Well known actors and actresses have already been engaged in the serial.

( 5 ) THE only episode which has been broadcast so far is the first one and this happened on the 12th of May, 2003 in the evening. The circumstances thereof we shall relate hereafter.

( 6 ) THE claim for infringement is not based upon what was televised on the 12th of May, 2003. The reference to that serial would be found only in one portion of one page in an affidavit-in-reply. The claim could not be based on the 12th of may serial because the plaint, or the statement of claim, was filed five days before that.

( 7 ) THE only substantial material on the basis of which the claim for infringement has been supported, if substantial material it is at all, is an interview taken by a freelance journalist named Ms. Pammi Somal from the respondent No. 2, Akashdeep Sabir, who is described by all concerned as "the creative director and producer". It is, however, to be mentioned that there is no evidence of Sabir having financed the project to any extent though that is the usual role ordinarily played by producers. His wife Sheeba is associated with the producer to whom Sahara has assigned responsibilities. Sabir and Sheeba are both parties but not Pammi.

( 8 ) HEREAFTER we give a brief resume of the facts, as those appeared to us to be reasonably acceptable, for interlocutory purposes. Almost every other fact alleged by one party is disputed by the other, but the disputes are not mentioned, not only for the purpose of brevity and readability, but also because the following gives our interlocutory assessment of the facts, as most likely, as on date.

( 9 ) THE above interview took place in the evening of the 2nd of May, 2003. But a lot of important things had happened before that. On or about the 28th of april, 2003 the 1st appellant alone had filed a suit in the Bombay High Court claiming for protection against infringement in relation to the very same items which are covered by the Calcutta suit.

( 10 ) A petition for obtaining injunction in Bombay was also affirmed. On the 2nd of May, 2003 during Court hours, the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. The interlocutory application suffered the same fate. The order of the Bombay Court sho