2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 1064
$~10
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
CS(COMM) 9/2024
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTING COMPANY LIMITED
..... Plaintiff
Through:
Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Ms. Anushree,
Mr. Rahul Dhote, Mr. Shwetank
Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Prakash, Mr.
Sachin, Mr. Mohit Bangwal & Mr.
Kunal Gupta, Advs.
versus
GOOGLE LLC & ORS.
..... Defendants
Through:
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. for D-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
S S AHLUWALIA
%
05.01.2024
I.A. 261/2024 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
1.
By this application under Order XI Rule 1(4), Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) as applicable to commercial suits under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, plaintiff seeks time to place on record
additional documents.
2.
The plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage,
shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
3.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 262/2024 (for placing Pen Drive on record)
1.
By this application under Section 151 of the CPC plaintiff seeks
permission to place on record a pen drive containing certain video footage
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/01/2024 at 05:18:28
of the live events as covered in plaintiff’s news programs & licensed videos.
2.
The application is allowed. Let the same be placed on record with
copy to the counsel for defendant no.1 and to other defendants, as and when
they enter appearance.
3.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 263/2024 (exemption from filing originals/certified copies etc.)
1.
Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
Applicant shall file legible, clear, and original copies of the
documents on which the applicant may seek to place reliance before the
next date of hearing.
3.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 264/2024 (exemption from pre-litigation mediation)
1.
This application has been filed seeking exemption from pre-litigation
mediation, as the same will defeat the very purpose of the relief claimed by
the plaintiff.
2.
Having regard to the facts of the present case and in light of the
judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia
v. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd., FAO (COMM) 128/2021, exemption
from attempting pre institution mediation is allowed.
3.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 260/2024 (application under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of the CPC)
1.
This application has been moved under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC
seeking directions against the defendants, as prayed for in the said
application. The context in which the said plaint has been filed is as under.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/01/2024 at 05:18:28
2.
Plaintiff is in the business of media and broadcasting services. It
operates several television channels and digital platforms in India under the
name and style of “TV9”. As part of their digital footprint, the plaintiff
carried their digital content, inter alia, on YouTube, which is platform
operated by defendant no.1. (Google LLC). Through these digital channels,
plaintiff uploads various news videos on a bouquet of subjects.
3.
Between 2020 -2023, plaintiff carried certain news programs on the
said digital channels relating to various events of natural disasters viz., the
Laura Hurricane in the United States, the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, heavy
snowfall in the United States, New York floods, and the 2023 Chinese
Balloon incident in the United States etc. For the said purpose, the plaintiff
used some on-ground footage from material available online.
4.
In December, 2023, plaintiff received strike notices by defendant nos.
2 to 5 regarding various videos which had been uploaded on the said digital
channels, on the basis that the videos uploaded by the plaintiff contained
footage of which defendant nos. 2 to 5 own copyright. Plaintiff responded
to these strike notices and various communications were exchanged
between them and defendant nos. 2 to 5, and their legal representatives.
Defendant no.1 removed the said videos of the plaintiff from YouTube,