IPR infringement case: BCCL apologises to HC for breaching Court order

The Republic TV versus Bennett, Coleman & Co Ltd (BCCL) case continues unabated, with both parties filing petitions and counter-petitions. In the latest development, BCCL’s lawyer Rajiv Nayyar apologised to the Delhi High Court on behalf of his clients for violating its order dated May 26, 2017, directing both the parties not to publish any news related to the proceedings of the case. 

Republic TV and its founder Arnab Goswami had moved a contempt of court petition naming Jaideep Bose, Editor-In-Chief, The Times of India; Indu Jain Chairperson; Vineet Jain, Managing Director; and Rajan Vaid, Assistant General Manager, BCCL. The petition alleged that the Respondents/ Contemnors had deliberately and with full knowledge, published and circulated through their newspapers, namely, The Times of India and Economic Times, and through their news websites, an article pertaining to the suit pending before the Court in express violation of the order dated May 26, 2017. 

Rajiv Nayyar, while tendering the apology, admitted that there was a communication gap on account of which the report was inadvertently published. He stated, “They had no intention to breach the Court’s order of May 26, 2017, which directed the parties not to publish any news on the ongoing proceedings.” 

The counsels for Republic TV and Goswami, Malvika Trivedi and Debarshi Dutta, and Partner Phoenix Legal showed the said articles that had appeared in the various editions of The Times of India and Economic Times, stressing that these were “coloured, one-sided and misled the public and the readers into believing that Republic TV/Arnab were being hauled up in the Court”. 

Following this, Justice Manmohan directed BCCL to publish the court order of May 26, 2107 in all the publications where the said articles were published earlier, within three days. The Judge also asked both the parties to “bring down the temperature”. 

When contacted by Adgully, a BCCL spokesperson refrained from commenting on this development, saying that the matter was sub judice.