S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. These three interlocutory appeals seek interference with the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 13.03.2013, whereby he granted an ad-interim order, and issued a “limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating contemporaneous match information in the form of ball-by-ball or minute-by-minute score updates/match alerts for a premium, without obtaining a license from the plaintiff.”

SINGLE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

2. The present case had a chequered history. A learned single judge had by the earlier order (dated 08-11-2012) rejected the three suits, holding that they were barred. A Division Bench set aside the learned single judge’s order, and directed that the application for ad-interim injunction should be heard on its merits. Thereafter, the learned single judge, by the impugned order, granted the ad-interim injunction in the manner described earlier. The facts are that Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Star) filed three suits against Piyush Agarwal (Cricbuzz), Idea Cellular (“Idea”) and OnMobile Global Ltd. (“ONMOBILE”). The Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) was arrayed as the common defendant in all the three cases. BCCI, however, supported Star, claiming paramount rights over all information emanating from cricketing events as the organizer and promoter of that sport in India. Star and BCCI contended in the suit that the latter (BCCI) by agreement dated 10.08.2012 had assigned a “bouquet of rights” exclusively to Star. These included “Mobile Rights” and “Mobile Activation Rights” and Star alleged that the defendants had violated those rights and consequently filed the suits currently in question for permanent injunction and damages. Star also moved interim injunction applications against the defendants alleging that they had violated those rights which were exclusively assigned to Star. The defendants resisted Star’s claims and asserted that such rights claimed by it did not exist, and as there was no question of enforcement of a nonexistent right, no relief could be granted. Before the learned Single Judge, the defendants” contentions were rejected and the ad-interim injunction sought was granted.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, Star and BCCI argued that unauthorized dissemination of match information through live score cards, match updates and score alerts through Short Messaging Service (SMS)/Mobile Value Added Services (MVAS), by the appellants constituted “unfair competition”, commercial misappropriation or unjust commercial enrichment. Star claimed to have spent Rs. 3581 Crores to acquire these rights, through the Media Rights Agreement dated 10.08.2012. The appellants had no license for such rights from Star or BCCI to disseminate match information.

4. The Appellants had argued that Star’s claim was barred by Section 16 of the Copyright Act, 1957 which precluded it from claiming copyright or other similar un-enumerated, rights. The Appellants claimed to have published match information, after it entered the public domain; that it was purely factual and amounted to news. They claimed that their actions did not amount to free-riding on the efforts of the plaintiff as they did not copy the content of the broadcast or provide access to audio or visual footage of the broadcast. The defendant/ appellants further argued that dissemination of information through SMS was in exercise of their free speech right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Their right also extended to freedom to carry on business in dissemination of information to the public; both these rights could be restricted through reasonable restrictions enacted through law, which fell under Article 19(2) and not by common law.

5. BCCI contended before the Single judge, that as the organizer of cricketing events in India, it owned exclusive rights in respect of content generated during a cricketing event. These included the right to commercially exploit all event content. BCCI claimed that it is