Primordial Systems Pvt Ltd v. Indian New Paper Society & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 04, 2017 "gsr"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th July, 2017 + CM(M) 546/2016 & CM No.20837/2016 (for stay) PRIMORDIAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Mehta & Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advs. Versus INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.B. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Raghav Kacker, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 9th February, 2016 of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) vacating the order (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC) dated 22nd November, 2011 of the Civil Judge, Delhi in favour of petitioner / plaintiff by allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 / defendant Indian Newspaper Society (INS) allowing the application of the petitioner / plaintiff. 2. The petitioner / plaintiff carrying on business of providing educational services had engaged M/s Hype N Hike as an advertising agency inter alia for placing advertisements of the petitioner in the print media. According to M/s Hype N Hike, the petitioner owed certain monies to M/s Hype N Hike and which the petitioner was failing to pay. M/s Hype N Hike approached the respondent no.1 INS to issue an advisory to newspapers and advertising agencies not to deal with the petitioner. The respondent no.1 INS found merit in the said representation / complaint of M/s Hype N Hike and issued an advisory dated 24th August, 2011 to all its member publications and accredited advertising agencies "not to release any advertisements of the petitioner till further advice". 3. Aggrieved from the aforesaid advisory, the petitioner / plaintiff instituted the suit from which this petition arises impugning and seeking stay of the said advisory. 4. The suit was accompanied with an application for interim stay. 5. The learned Civil Judge found merit in the application of the petitioner for interim injunction and vide order dated 22nd November, 2011 supra granted the stay of the said advisory dated 24th August, 2011. 6. The respondent no.1 INS preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC against the said order and which appeal was allowed. Resultantly, the interim stay of operation of the advisory dated 24th August, 2011 stood vacated and the advisory remains in force. 7. The counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff states that owing to the said advisory none of the advertising agencies and print media are ready to carry the advertisements of the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Though interim relief was claimed in this petition but has not been granted as yet. 9. The counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff and the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 INS have been heard. 10. Though HT Media Ltd. and The Times Group were also impleaded by the petitioner as defendants in the suit and are respondents no.2 and 3 to this petition but none appears for them. On enquiry it is informed that they are not contesting the suit either. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 states that HT Media Ltd. did file a written statement to the suit but has not been appearing. 11. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, whether M/s Hype N Hike have instituted any proceeding for recovery of their dues from the petitioner. 12. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner/plaintiff, besides the suit for injunction from which this petition arises, has also instituted a suit for recovery of damages of about Rs.45 lacs from M/s Hype N Hike and in which suit M/s Hype N Hike have filed a counterclaim for recovery of their dues of about Rs.22 lacs from the petitioner. Besides the said proceedings no other proceeding is stated to be pending though the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 INS points out that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with respect to the same advisory but