Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court is known for his inventive judgments, and this time, he might have just started a judicial trend..The case was a copyright infringement suit against the producers of the Kannada movie ‘Pushpaka Vimana’ released in 2017. The defendants in the case proved to be particularly evasive, with the plaintiffs doing virtually everything to serve summons on them..In the end, they found the mobile number of one of the producers – confirmed to be his by the TrueCaller app – and sent him the summons via WhatsApp. The defendant received the same and replied, ‘I dint understand anything. Will check with my legal team and I’ll text you back. I am out of station.’ Both defendants were also served summons through email..Justice Patel noted in his order dated March 23,.“I do not see what more can be done for the purposes of this Motion. It cannot be that our rules and procedure are either so ancient or so rigid (or both) that without some antiquated formal service mode through a bailiff or even by beat of drum or pattaki, a party cannot be said to have been ‘properly’ served..The purpose of service is put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is surely irrelevant. We have not formally approved of email and other modes as acceptable simply because there are inherent limitation to proving service. Where an alternative mode is used, however, and service is shown to be effected, and is acknowledged, then surely it cannot be suggested that the Defendants had ‘no notice’….…Defendants who avoid and evade service by regular modes cannot be permitted to take advantage of that evasion.”.He went on to show how the “invasiveness” of technology could be used to scupper attempts at avoiding court summons..“If Vikhyat and Krishna (the producers) believe they can resort to these tactics to avoid service, they are wrong. They may succeed in avoiding a bailiff. They may be able to avoid a courier or a postman. They have reckoned without the invasiveness of information technology. Vikhyat in particular does not seem to have cottoned on to the fact that when somebody calls him and he responds, details can be obtained from in-phone apps and services, and these are very hard to either obscure or disguise.”.Despite these attempts to reach out to them, the defendants did not reply to the notice of motion and failed to appear in court..Coming to the case itself, it was contended by the plaintiffs – represented by Dr. Birendra Saraf who was briefed by TRA and Ankita Singh of A&P Partners – that the Kannada movie was a copy of the Korean film titled ‘Miracle in Cell No. 7’, released in 2013..Justice Patel prima facie agreed with the arguments made by the plaintiffs that Pushpaka Vimana was “a colourable imitation of the Korean original”, based on fifteen instances set out in the plaint. Consequently, he granted an interim stay on the further exhibition, distribution and telecast of the movie..The case was listed for April 12, and then April 20, but no further orders have been published on the Bombay High Court website..Whether Justice Patel’s reluctance to stick to “antiquated and formal service modes” will be followed by other judges is what remains to be seen..Read the order:
