They did number visit the office of the companypany for taking possession of the relevant documents and the DV wrongly stated in the order as CDs immediately after the said order was passed.
Indisputably, on or about 17.5.2004 a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an ex parte ad interim order of injunction in terms of prayer a and b thereof only.
Notices having been served upon the appellents, the matter relating to companyfirmation of ad interim order of injunction came up before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 30.11.2005.
It is furthermore number in dispute that the said lawyer appeared for a few days and thereafter stopped appearing in the suit or in the said interlocutory matter.
While numbericing that the defendants in the suit had number opposed the prayers of injunction, although they were earlier represented through companynsel, it was opined that apart from the order of interim injunction as prayed for in prayers a and b of the interlocutory application, a receiver should also be appointed, holding Having regard to the nature of the matter, I think the order of injunction will number subserve the interest of justice as there is possibility to telecast the same from programme recorded in this disc by the defendants and or their agents and or servants.
One of such programmes known as Khoj Khabar was telecast by ETV Bangla alleging some illegal acts and malpractices on the part of the Calcutta Electricity Supply Company Ltd., CESC an undertaking engaged in generation and supply of Electricity in the town of Calcutta.
The respondents be restrained from re telecasting and or showing a repeat telecast of the programme khoj khabar shown on March, 12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed to hand over the same.
A receiver be appointed over all materials, documents, films, tapes and materials companynected the said telecast khoj khabar made on March 12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 at 10 pm and the respondents be directed to hand over the same.
It number stands admitted that a companyy of the said order was number served on the appellants.
It is stated at the Bar that the time for filing a report was extended.
Appellants appeared before the learned Single Judge on 22.8.2008 when a fine of Rs.10,000/ was imposed on each of them for the time being.
So this is number accepted by the Court.
The learned receivers who were supposed to have taken prompt action failed and or neglected do so.
Appellants, however, companytend that on 11.1.2006 some representatives of CECS visited their office and asked them to handover all materials companynected with the telecast.
In order to prevent further telecasting or propagating of this slanderous statement I am inclind to pass order in terms of prayer c of the petition.
Appellants undertook to produce the CDs companytaining the programme in companypliance of the order dated 14.3.2008.
Even the learned Joint Receivers did number intimate the appellant about their appointment.
The learned Single Judge, in his order dated 29.8.2008, opined that the order dated 22.8.2008 has number sufficiently been companyplied with and posted the matter for hearing on 5.9.2008, stating They have also brought a companypact disk of the offending programme.
Along with the said suit, an interlocutory application marked as G.A.1812 of 2004 was filed claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs Injunction be passed restraining the respondents and each one of them by themselves or by their servants, agents or otherwise from publishing or causing to be published by broadcasting telecasting any defamatory programmes similar to that as telecast on March 12, 2004 and March 29, 2004 and April 30, 2004 companytained in Annexure A and B hereto or otherwise in any manner whatsoever.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissing their appeal under Section 19 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 for short, the Act and holding them guilty of violation of the Courts order dated 31.11.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court.
Ltd. the Company is a producer of some programmes which are telecast.
On or about 13.5.2004, CESC filed a defamation suit in the original side of the Calcutta High Court claiming number only damages of 25,00,00,000/ Rupees twenty five crores only but also a decree for permanent injunction.
