Single Bench judgment in Star India set aside

In its judgment dated 3rd December, 2012, the Division Bench of Delhi HC comprising of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Manmohan Singh set aside the Single Bench judgment dated 8th November, 2012 in Star India Pvt. Ltd v. Piyush Aggarwal  & Ors. on the ground of serious procedural flaws. [We blogged on the aforesaid Single Bench judgment here and here.] The Division Bench, vide its judgment, restored the civil suits along with all the pending applications which included the application seeking interim injunction. As per the judgment, With as many as 12 senior counsels breathing down the neck of the Judge; docket explosion  breaking the back of the judicial system, it was a rushrush affair, and regretfully has resulted in a situation of precious time, far from being saved, being lost.”(paragraph 30) The Division Bench observed that the Single Bench judgment was a “self-contradictory decision” on the ambit of broadcasting rights. (paragraph 31)
The Division Bench, further, held that if an issue arises as to whether common law recognizes any proprietary/ownership interest in BCCI with respect to cricket matches organized by BCCI, then the Single Judge will have the discretion to settle the same as a preliminary issue provided the pleadings evidence it as a purely legal issue. This direction of the Division Bench is in conformity with Order 14, Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Supreme Court judgment in  Ramesh B. Desai v. BipinVadilal Mehta (AIR 2006 SC 3672)  (which re-affirmed the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon (AIR 1964 SC 497) – “Under O. 14 r. 2, Code of Civil Procedure, where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depend upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit.”)
Mathews P. George

Mathews P. George

Mathews is a graduate of National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. His interest in intellectual property was kindled when he bagged the second position in his second year of Law School (in the prestigious Nani Palkhiwala Essay Competition on Intellectual Property). His stint as a student of Prof. Shamnad Basheer further accentuated his interest in intellectual property. Winner of almost a dozen essay competitions in his Law School days, he was involved in various research and policy initiatives relating to intellectual property. Mathews is, currently, based out of Munich, Germany. He had earlier done his LLM in 'IP and Competition Law' from Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre (jointly run by Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, University of Augsburg, Technical University of Munich and George Washington University, Washington).


  1. AvatarAnonymous

    The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has passed a limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from disseminating scores. Order was pronounced in court. Should be out online by the end of the day.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.