Times Internet Limited v. Alt Digital Media Entertainment Limited

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 23, 2019 "bs/gsr" (Corrected & released on 2nd July, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23rd May, 2019. + CS(COMM) 268/2019 & IAs No.7435/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) & 7436/2019 (u/O II R-2 CPC) TIMES INTERNET LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Chadha and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advs. Versus ALT DIGITAL MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED ......Defendant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Mr. Anurag Tandon, Ms. Niyati Asthana, Mr. Sohan Kumar and Mr. Ambar Bhushan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit "for permanent and mandatory injunction" pleading, (i) that the plaintiff is inter alia engaged in the business of production, development, marketing and distribution of media and entertainment content; the plaintiff owns and operates the digital platform namely MX Player; (ii) that the said platform of the plaintiff has become a preferred choice of millions of its customers who are looking for one-stop platform for movies, TV shows, web series, music videos and short videos; (iii) that the said platform of the plaintiff focuses on exclusive original content, with emphasis on high-quality Hindi and regional languages; (iv) that the defendant is engaged in the business inter alia of production and development of audio-visual content and is the producer and owner of media content, including original shows, web series, videos, sound recordings and other audio visual content; (v) that the defendant also operates and provides an over-the-top platform that offers subscription- based video on-demand services; (vi) that in the year 2018, the defendant offered to grant to the plaintiff, the right to integrate its digital platform / website / channel or other means of distribution of content operated by the defendant or its affiliates, including the platform named ALT Balaji, with the plaintiff"s platform, to distribute the existing and additional programs operated by the defendant on Balaji platform and make them available to the viewers of the plaintiff"s MX Player platform; (vii) that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a Content Distribution Agreement dated 11th October, 2018 whereunder the defendant granted to the plaintiff, for the period from 28th September, 2018 to 27th September, 2019 inter alia, (a) the right to integrate, incorporate and embed the content of defendant"s platform with the plaintiff"s platform; and, (b) right to broadcast each of the programs or any parts thereof available on the defendant"s Balaji platform on the plaintiff"s platform; (viii) that in consideration of the rights granted by the defendant, the plaintiff, out of the total agreed consideration of Rs.12 crores, paid licence fee of Rs.6,48,00,000/- (Rs.4,32,00,000/- + Rs.2,16,00,000/-); (ix) that in terms of the Agreement, the defendant made the content available on its platform to the plaintiff in the format mutually agreed upon between the parties; (x) that during the meeting held on 4th March, 2019, the representatives of the defendant expressed their intention to, with effect from 1st April, 2019, withdraw all the content provided by the defendant under the said Agreement on the plaintiff"s platform; (xi) that such sudden withdrawal was not acceptable to the plaintiff, since the same was in breach of the Agreement which is valid till 27th September, 2019 and was bound to have severe and adverse implications on plaintiff"s business plans and viewership; (xii) that the business plans of the plaintiff are devised on the basis of the quantum of content anticipated by the plaintiff from its content partners; thus the unexpected deviation from an agreed understanding by the defendant as a content partner of the plaintiff affected the business plans of the plaintiff; (xiii) that even though there was no obligation to hold discussions with the defendant but the plaintiff held discussions with the defendant; however the defendant was adamant; (xiv) that in