The Bombay High Court seems to have had enough frivolity from litigants..A single judge Bench of Justice GS Patel has awarded costs, yet again, to plaintiffs attempting to consume scarce judicial time (to borrow a phrase from the judge himself)..The case in question was that the film Phillauri was alleged to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ copyright in their 2013 Gujarati, Bhojpuri and Nepali film Mangal Phera. The basis of the copyright infringement claim was the trailer of the Defendants’ film. The plaint itself acknowledged that the trailer was released over six weeks ago, if not more, on 6th February 2017 with a confirmed theatrical release date of 24th March 2017. But the plaintiff waited till March 21 to file the suit..The petitioners counsel requested for an urgent hearing on the ground that the film was releasing shortly. Upon the insistence of the counsel, the Bench listed the matter at 12, with the caveat that that should the judge find against the Plaintiffs (a) on lack of genuine urgency; or (b) on merits (or both), there may well be severe consequences..Disregarding the warning, the plaintiffs persisted. The matter was then taken up after 1 o’clock..The primary contention of the plaintiffs was that the ‘originality’ lay in the narrative of an accused woman being forced to marry a tree only to discover there resides in it a spirit to which (or whom) she is then wedded. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that the idea or concept of a living person accidentally marrying a tree-ghost is not new. There was material to show that it dated back to 19th century Russian folktales and an episode of a television serial telecast on 7th November 2013..Addressing the question of urgency on a Motion of Notice demanded by the plaintiffs, the Court noted,.“The effect of granting such a circulation application would be that I would have to set aside all other work, including part-heard and specially fixed matters, only to accommodate the Plaintiffs who have chosen to come this late, though they could well have moved earlier. This practice of parties claiming copyright infringement coming to Court at the eleventh hour and expecting Courts to drop all other work to listen to and decide their applications on a priority basis must be discouraged.”.And that’s not all. The narrative continues with the judge saying,.“Let me outline what granting such an application involves. If allowed, there will be an urgent hearing two days from now, on Thursday at the earliest, the day before the Defendants’ film releases. That hearing will take the better part of the day; most certainly a couple of hours. Both sides will want to argue the matter fully. Then I must dictate a judgment in Court. This must be transcribed that very evening. My staff, which work long hours — some commute two hours in one direction — must work late into the night to complete the transcription to deliver it to me for correction. Assuming I carry out those corrections in soft copy myself, as is my usual practice, that will take another several hours.”.While it was obvious that in urgent cases, such a procedure would be merited, the Court did not see the present case fit for such an indulgence. It also observed that granting priority would be an “an unconscionable indulgence” where it was shown, and especially where it is admitted, that the plaintiff knew several weeks in advance of the release of the film..The Court then proceeded to call it a ‘litigation strategy’ and a ‘courtroom gambit’ to snatch away last minute injunctions so as to prejudice the opposite side..“I also have, as I said in the beginning, a far more fundamental issue with this approach and this so-called litigation strategy or courtroom gambit. I am now making it clear once and for all that these attempts at snatching last-minute injunctions, unfairly prejudicing the other side, and putting other litigants to real hardship (not mere inconvenience), let alone putting Courts and their infrastructure under pressure, will not be tolerated. Our Courts are not meant for these frivolities. They are not meant as playgrounds where any person with a fanciful notion can come at the last minute and demand as of right that all other work be set aside and all other concerns be relegated to second place. I have even today before me a courtroom packed with lawyers and litigants. Parties in other actions are patiently waiting their turn. There are as many as three separate listings today, each in double digits. While Mr D’Costa, Mr Saboo and their clients take liberties with judicial time, this comes at the cost of others who have done nothing wrong. I have no means of compensating any of the others who have waited their turn, having come to court today in the reasonable expectation that their cases will be taken up. I can only apologize to these many others; and I must do so because I hear no hint of apology or regret from Mr D’Costa or Mr Saboo. There is not much more I can do. But I can certainly make it clear to the Plaintiffs that having gambled with the court’s time, and having ‘taken their chances’, they will also now take the consequences.”.The Court refused interim relief and posted the matter for hearing in the ordinary course..“I am refusing all ad-interim relief. The Notice of Motion will come up in its ordinary course. I set no date for it and I am not setting for any Affidavit in Reply either. The Defendants will file their Affidavit in Reply as and when they think it is appropriate. I stress this again. I do not care whether that Affidavit in Reply takes one week, one month, one year or more. The Defendants will take their time over it.”.And it doesn’t seem that the judge is a man of empty threats. When he voiced his intent to award costs, he notes,.“Without a word of protest, the Defendants have gathered their legal team. The costs must be considerable. Given the number of lawyers appearing, actual costs will almost certainly be higher than what I intend to award.”.He then proceeded to impose a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh to be paid to the Legal Aid Cell and the remaining 50% to the Tata Memorial Hospital..Advocates Aldrin D’Costa and Manoj Kumar Saboo appeared for the plaintiffs, and Senior Advocate VV Tulzapurkar for the respondents..Read the order below.
The Bombay High Court seems to have had enough frivolity from litigants..A single judge Bench of Justice GS Patel has awarded costs, yet again, to plaintiffs attempting to consume scarce judicial time (to borrow a phrase from the judge himself)..The case in question was that the film Phillauri was alleged to be in violation of the Plaintiffs’ copyright in their 2013 Gujarati, Bhojpuri and Nepali film Mangal Phera. The basis of the copyright infringement claim was the trailer of the Defendants’ film. The plaint itself acknowledged that the trailer was released over six weeks ago, if not more, on 6th February 2017 with a confirmed theatrical release date of 24th March 2017. But the plaintiff waited till March 21 to file the suit..The petitioners counsel requested for an urgent hearing on the ground that the film was releasing shortly. Upon the insistence of the counsel, the Bench listed the matter at 12, with the caveat that that should the judge find against the Plaintiffs (a) on lack of genuine urgency; or (b) on merits (or both), there may well be severe consequences..Disregarding the warning, the plaintiffs persisted. The matter was then taken up after 1 o’clock..The primary contention of the plaintiffs was that the ‘originality’ lay in the narrative of an accused woman being forced to marry a tree only to discover there resides in it a spirit to which (or whom) she is then wedded. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that the idea or concept of a living person accidentally marrying a tree-ghost is not new. There was material to show that it dated back to 19th century Russian folktales and an episode of a television serial telecast on 7th November 2013..Addressing the question of urgency on a Motion of Notice demanded by the plaintiffs, the Court noted,.“The effect of granting such a circulation application would be that I would have to set aside all other work, including part-heard and specially fixed matters, only to accommodate the Plaintiffs who have chosen to come this late, though they could well have moved earlier. This practice of parties claiming copyright infringement coming to Court at the eleventh hour and expecting Courts to drop all other work to listen to and decide their applications on a priority basis must be discouraged.”.And that’s not all. The narrative continues with the judge saying,.“Let me outline what granting such an application involves. If allowed, there will be an urgent hearing two days from now, on Thursday at the earliest, the day before the Defendants’ film releases. That hearing will take the better part of the day; most certainly a couple of hours. Both sides will want to argue the matter fully. Then I must dictate a judgment in Court. This must be transcribed that very evening. My staff, which work long hours — some commute two hours in one direction — must work late into the night to complete the transcription to deliver it to me for correction. Assuming I carry out those corrections in soft copy myself, as is my usual practice, that will take another several hours.”.While it was obvious that in urgent cases, such a procedure would be merited, the Court did not see the present case fit for such an indulgence. It also observed that granting priority would be an “an unconscionable indulgence” where it was shown, and especially where it is admitted, that the plaintiff knew several weeks in advance of the release of the film..The Court then proceeded to call it a ‘litigation strategy’ and a ‘courtroom gambit’ to snatch away last minute injunctions so as to prejudice the opposite side..“I also have, as I said in the beginning, a far more fundamental issue with this approach and this so-called litigation strategy or courtroom gambit. I am now making it clear once and for all that these attempts at snatching last-minute injunctions, unfairly prejudicing the other side, and putting other litigants to real hardship (not mere inconvenience), let alone putting Courts and their infrastructure under pressure, will not be tolerated. Our Courts are not meant for these frivolities. They are not meant as playgrounds where any person with a fanciful notion can come at the last minute and demand as of right that all other work be set aside and all other concerns be relegated to second place. I have even today before me a courtroom packed with lawyers and litigants. Parties in other actions are patiently waiting their turn. There are as many as three separate listings today, each in double digits. While Mr D’Costa, Mr Saboo and their clients take liberties with judicial time, this comes at the cost of others who have done nothing wrong. I have no means of compensating any of the others who have waited their turn, having come to court today in the reasonable expectation that their cases will be taken up. I can only apologize to these many others; and I must do so because I hear no hint of apology or regret from Mr D’Costa or Mr Saboo. There is not much more I can do. But I can certainly make it clear to the Plaintiffs that having gambled with the court’s time, and having ‘taken their chances’, they will also now take the consequences.”.The Court refused interim relief and posted the matter for hearing in the ordinary course..“I am refusing all ad-interim relief. The Notice of Motion will come up in its ordinary course. I set no date for it and I am not setting for any Affidavit in Reply either. The Defendants will file their Affidavit in Reply as and when they think it is appropriate. I stress this again. I do not care whether that Affidavit in Reply takes one week, one month, one year or more. The Defendants will take their time over it.”.And it doesn’t seem that the judge is a man of empty threats. When he voiced his intent to award costs, he notes,.“Without a word of protest, the Defendants have gathered their legal team. The costs must be considerable. Given the number of lawyers appearing, actual costs will almost certainly be higher than what I intend to award.”.He then proceeded to impose a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh to be paid to the Legal Aid Cell and the remaining 50% to the Tata Memorial Hospital..Advocates Aldrin D’Costa and Manoj Kumar Saboo appeared for the plaintiffs, and Senior Advocate VV Tulzapurkar for the respondents..Read the order below.