Karnataka High Court Allows Netflix To Stream "Crime Stories : India Detectives"; Vacates Interim Order

The Karnataka High Court has vacated the ex-parte interim order granted earlier by which it had directed Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP to block streaming, broadcasting, telecasting or otherwise making available the content of the Episode No.1 of the Series 1 of the documentary "Crime Stories: India Detective" titled "A Murdered Mother". A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad had on October 1, on the petition filed by an accused Sridhar Rao S, undergoing trial for offences under Sections 302 and 307, 212, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed the interim order. Later the respondents moved the court seeking vacating of the order. Senior Advocate S S Naganad appearing for Netflix and Senior Advocate Uday Holla appearing for Minnow Films Ltd, submitted that the petitioner's application for temporary injunction is still pending before the civil court for grant of temporary injunction and therefore the petitioner would not be entitled for continuation of the ex-parte order of injunction even if the petition is disposed of calling upon the civil Court to decide on the petitioner's application for temporary injunction. Further, it was submitted that, "Petitioner is videographed with his consent and the telecast is after certain exchanges with the petitioner. This exchange discloses negotiations commenced after giving consent." It was added, "The petitioner has deliberately not disclosed certain material facts and there is a definite mis-statement of facts, and this violates the rule of candour which is a concomitant of the rule of 'utmost good faith', a condition precedent for grant of ex parte temporary injunction." Further the respondents submitted details of the email correspondence purportedly by the petitioner's counsel Sri. Arvind Kamath, with the respondents for a certain negotiation over the telecast on its OTT platform and a complaint lodged with the Regulatory Authority. The petitioner cannot deny the knowledge of the negotiations conducted by his counsel over his consent. Therefore, there is deliberate non-disclosure, and a definite misstatement. Advocate Ayantika Mondal appearing for the petitioner contended that the jurisdictional police have taken his (petitioner) signature on plain paper given by the second respondent's representative, Ms. Claire Goodlass. The petitioner has pleaded the necessary material and therefore there cannot be allegations of non-disclosure of any fact. Further, she submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2020 and released over the next thirty days. The petitioner's consent, which is relied upon by the respondents to buttress the submission that there is deliberate non-disclosure and mis-statements, is dated 7.2.2020 when the petitioner was in police custody. This purported consent is tainted, and no significance can be attached to the same. Court findings: The court referring to the judgment of the apex court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Dr. Kartick Das reported in [1994] 4 SCC 225 and considering the facts of the present case said, "On a conjoint reading of the statements in the plaint and in the affidavit, cannot but opine that there is a definite violation of the rule of 'utmost good faith'." It added, "If the petitioner had disclosed these circumstances, and indicating a possible consent for the shooting of the tele-documentary and subsequent telecast, this Court would not have been persuaded to grant an ad-interim ex parte order of injunction." The court noted, "The negotiations include a request for payment of a certain amount to the petitioner by the respondents. The question of greater injustice to the petitioner if there is no extension of the interim order when the application is pending for consideration before the civil court, is examined in the context of a possible petitioner's consent and a subsequent negotiation. This Court can only reasonably opine that the petitioner is not entitled for continuation of the ex-parte injunction granted by this Court." Further the court directed the civil court to expeditiously consider the petitioner's application within six [6] weeks. Case Title: Sridhar Rao S v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP.Case No: Writ Petition No.18038/2021Date Of Order: October 28, 2021.Appearance: Advocate Ayantika Mondal, for PetitionerSenior Advocate S.S. Naganand, A/W Advocate Vikram Unni Rajagopal, for R1; Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, A/W Advocate Anand Muttalli, for R2Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Karnataka High Court Allows Netflix To Stream "Crime Stories : India Detectives"; Vacates Interim Order

Mustafa Plumber

Tags