The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's power to grant urgent relief and issue directions for blocking rogue websites under Section 80 CPC, Section 151 CPC, and Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 3984/2022 (exemption from issuing notice)

2. In view of the urgent relief sought in this suit, the issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC qua the governmental authorities, i.e., Department of Telecommunications/Defendant No. 18 (hereinafter "DoT") and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology/Defendant No.19 (hereinafter "MEITY"), is exempted.

3. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

I.A. 3985/2022 (for exemption from filing clearer copies)

4. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing clearer copies or with exact margins and/or which are handwritten or English translations and from filing originals of the documents. For the reasons stated in the application, exemption is allowed.

5. Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 157/2022

6. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

7. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of process fee. Mr. Vaidyanathan, ld. CGSC, accepts summons for DoT and MEITY.

8. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

9. Liberty is given to the Plaintiffs to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiffs, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

10. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 25th May, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

11. List before Court on 26th April, 2022. I.A. 3983/2022 (for stay)

12. Issue notice. Mr. Vaidyanathan, ld. CGSC, accepts notice for DoT ad MEITY. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining violation of their broadcasting rights as also for rendition of accounts and damages, etc. The suit is based on the premise that the Plaintiffs have acquired exclusive Media Rights which include Mobile Activation Rights and certain ancillary Rights (hereinafter "Exclusive Rights") for the Indian Premier League matches for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 1st January, 2018 to 30th September, 2022. The Plaintiffs seek an injunction against various Defendants which are websites termed as Rogue Websites, namely, Defendants Nos.1 to 8 at this stage. Defendant Nos.9 to 17 are internet service providers (hereinafter "ISPs"). Defendant Nos.18 and 19 are Governmental authorities, i.e., DoT and MEITY.

13. The submission of Mr. Saikrishna, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, is that Defendant Nos.1 to 8 have been habitually observed to be airing pirated content without any licence or authorization by the Plaintiffs. By way of illustration, it is submitted that the screenshots of footage from the previous cricket matches including the West India Tour of India 2022 and Sri Lanka Tour of India 2022, which was aired without authorization, has been placed on record. Mr. Saikrishna, ld. Counsel submits that these screenshots would show that the Defendants do not respect the Plaintiffs' Exclusive Rights. He submits that the Defendants are indulging in gross violation of the Plaintiffs' rights and piracy in as much as during the currency of the match, it is noticed that the telecast on the Rogue Websites is usually initiated and by the time action can be taken and the websites are taken down, the match itself is over. Thus, enormous loss is caused to the Plaintiffs due to the illegal streaming of the cricketing events in which the Plain