SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 629

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH AND S RACHAIAH
MOKSH AGARBATTI CO. – Appellant
Versus
GANESH – Respondent
RFA 891/2018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 891 OF 2018 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MOKSH AGARBATTI CO.

NO.39, 3RD MAIN ROAD,

J.C. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

YELACHINAHALLI,

KANAKAPURA ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560062.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

MOKSH AGARBATTI CO., NO.39, 3RD MAIN ROAD,

J.C. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

YELACHINAHALLI,

Di gitally

KANAKAPURA ROAD,

signed by

VASANTHA BENGALURU - 560062.

KUMARY B

…APPELLANTS

K

Location: (BY SRI. S G BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE)

HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AND:

1. GANESH

S/O. KISHEN B.B.,

39 YEARS,

NO.100, ADDIKEMARANAHALLI,

MAKALI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK,

BENGALURU NORTH - 562123.

2. S. NARAYAN

PROPRETOR: CHALUVAMBIKA,

PICTURES, NO.17, KEERTHI, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560079.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 08/07/2024)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE 02.04.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.218/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AS AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.3/RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN AND DECREEING THE SUIT AS AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.1 AND DEFENDANT NO.2/APPELLANTS HEREIN.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.218/2008 filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

defendants/respondents. Therefore, we are of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for compensation. But what amount of compensation is the question which needs to be decided.

8. The plaintiff has issued legal notice in Exhibit-P3 demanding damages of Rs.75,00,000/- for using his image/photographs in the advertisement put in at banners and posters by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. To support the claim for Rs.75,00,000/- the plaintiff has led documentary evidence. The plaintiff who got himself examined as PW1 has stated that the plaintiff's fee for doing a film at the relevant time when the advertisement was put was Rs.1 crore. He has also stated that as a brand ambassador of Reliance Products, the plaintiff was paid remuneration of more than Rs.35,00,000/- for a year. 9. We, however, do not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the demand of Rs.75,00,000/- as damages for using his photographs/image in the advertisement by the respondents/defendants. The appellant/plaintiff cannot draw the equivalence between the remuneration paid to him for doing movie and remuneration for an advertisement. The advertisement does not require the same kind of time, efforts and devotion as spent in doing a movie. The best evidence was led was in respect of him being a brand ambassador of Reliance products for which for a whole year he was paid remuneration of Rs.35,00,000/-. Hence, we are of the view that the amount of compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court appears to be excessive and not supported by sufficient and cogent evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff. It was for the appellant/plaintiff to prove the damages by leading cogent and credible evidence in this regard. Therefore, the compensation awarded to the appellant/plaintiff must be reasonable, through proper assessment.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has left it to the discretion of this Court to fix appropriate compensation, taking into account the plaintiff's own evidence that he had received Rs.35,00,000/- for being the brand ambassador of Reliance product for a whole year at the relevant time.

11. Considering th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top