w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



HT Media Limited & Another v/s WWW.THEWORLDNEWS.NET & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- HT MEDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L22121DL2002PLC117874

Company & Directors' Information:- B K MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC266323

Company & Directors' Information:- NET 4 INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L72200DL1985PLC022649

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92130TN2008PTC066197

Company & Directors' Information:- M C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130MH1996PTC098640

Company & Directors' Information:- NET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033623

Company & Directors' Information:- I-NET PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC094702

Company & Directors' Information:- K--NET PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92120DL2000PTC104679

Company & Directors' Information:- NET MEDIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921DL1999PTC099899

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA NET PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN1995PTC030422

Company & Directors' Information:- R A NET (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200MH2000PTC124559

Company & Directors' Information:- K P R MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC099363

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA 6 (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22211TG2010PTC069036

Company & Directors' Information:- V L MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22222UP2015PTC070065

Company & Directors' Information:- D A MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22110DL2001PTC111926

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC149237

Company & Directors' Information:- J. M. MEDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2012PLC231621

Company & Directors' Information:- IN-NET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124429

Company & Directors' Information:- N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92100TN2008PTC067723

Company & Directors' Information:- I E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH1993PTC075096

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300BR1993PLC005422

Company & Directors' Information:- R G MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TG1994PTC018512

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2012PTC187736

Company & Directors' Information:- U S MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1998PTC091530

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22190MH2010PTC211481

Company & Directors' Information:- K & V MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH2008PTC188833

Company & Directors' Information:- K 4 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TG2013PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- S & N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900BR2013PTC020667

Company & Directors' Information:- H A E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2011PTC042765

Company & Directors' Information:- R P MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130KA2013PTC071267

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL2000PTC103350

Company & Directors' Information:- K MEDIA PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U01222WB1991PTC053599

    CS (COMM). No. 321 of 2019

    Decided On, 17 February 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

    For the Plaintiffs: Sidharth Chopra, Asavari Jain, Abhiti Vachher, Advocates. For the Defendants: D15, Amit Mahajan, CGSC, Arjun Dev, D16, Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, Anshuman Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Judgment (Oral)

1. The plaintiffs are part of the Hindustan Times group of companies ("HT Group"), which has various media related businesses, including publication of newspapers. Its newspapers are available in print, as well as online. The English daily, Hindustan Times, was founded in 1924 and, according to the plaintiffs, has a daily readership of over 8 million readers today. The plaintiffs' other publications include a business newspaper - Mint, and Hindi publications - Hindustan, Nandan and Kadambini, as also radio channels and online businesses.

2. In the present suit, the plaintiffs allege infringement of copyright, trademark and passing off against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (collectively referred to as "the principal defendants"). The said defendants own and operate a website which, according to the plaintiffs, has been reproducing and making available online content from the plaintiffs' publication. According to the plaintiffs, the operation of defendant No.1 involves aggregation of news content from the world over and publication thereof on its own platform. Defendant No. 2 is the entity which manages defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is a German company on which defendant No. 1 - website is hosted, and defendant No. 4 is the privacy service provider. Defendant No. 5 is the erstwhile registrar of defendant No.1 - website. Defendant Nos. 6 to 14 are internet service providers ["ISPs"], whose assistance the plaintiffs seek to block the concerned website. Defendants No. 15 and 16 are the departments of the Government of India, which are required to issue notifications with regard to blocking of the impugned website.

3. The plaintiffs have also placed on record registration certificates showing that they are the registered proprietors of various trademarks, including "Hindustan Times", for various classes of goods and services which include newspapers, magazines, etc. The plaintiffs also operate websites, including www.hindustantimes.com, on which news articles are continuously uploaded. The plaintiffs claim copyright in the articles and images uploaded thereupon.

4. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 is a "rogue website" within the meaning of the judgment of this Court in UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. Torrentmovies. Co. & Ors., 2019 (DLT SOFT) 6138=2019 (78) PTC 375 (Del) [CS(COMM) 724/2017 and connected matters, decided on 10.04.2019], as its principal activity involves reproduction, publication and communication of infringing material. An investigation undertaken by the plaintiffs between 21.05.2019 and 24.05.2019 disclosed an average of approximately 20 articles from the plaintiffs' website being uploaded by defendant No.1-website each day. The defendants, in fact, do acknowledge and attribute the article to the plaintiffs, but do not permit a user to link to the plaintiffs' own website. The plaintiffs have placed screenshots of the impugned website to demonstrate the availability of large scale infringing content. Defendant No.1 website also has a "bill payment" option, which indicates that its activities are of a commercial nature. The plaintiffs claim that the aforesaid activity of the defendant No.1 - website violates the statutory protection to the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights granted by the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.

5. On the basis of the above allegations, the plaintiffs seek the following relief in the suit:

“97. In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the Plaintiffs:

(a) Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, its owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner copying, reproducing, hosting, storing, making available, communicating and publishing or facilitating the same on their website www.theworldnews.net or any other website or online location owned or operated by them, in any manner whatsoever, the Plaintiffs’ Original Content amounting to infringement Plaintiffs’ copyright therein;

(b) Issue an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, its owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner using directly or indirectly the name/mark “HINDUSTAN TIMES” or any other mark identical/deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademark “HINDUSTAN TIMES” amounting to trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition of the Plaintiffs’ registered trademark “HINDUSTAN TIMES”;

(c) Issue an order and decree directing Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block/suspend access to Defendant No. 1 website www.theworldnews.net;

(d) Issue an order and decree directing Defendant Nos. 6- 14, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and, on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block/suspend access to Defendant No. 1 website www.theworldnews.net;

(e) Issue an order directing the Defendant Nos. 15 and 16 to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block/suspend access to Defendant No. 1 website www.theworldnews.net;

(f) Issue an order and decree directing Defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by of under it, to disclose the contact details and other details of the owner/Registrant of the domain name of the Defendant No. 1 website such as name, email address, physical address, phone number, all IP addresses used by Defendant No.1, invoices issues by Defendant No. 3, 4 and 5 to the owner/Registrant of Defendant No. 1, details regarding credit card or bank account of owner/Registrant of Defendant No.1;

(g) Issue an order for damages of Rs 2,00,01,000/- be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs’ Original Content and the mark “HINDUSTAN TIMES” and a decree for the said amount be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs;

(h) An order for the costs of these proceedings against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in favour of the Plaintiffs; Any other order(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. The suit was first listed on 31.05.2019, when summons were issued and an ex-parte ad interim order was granted in the following terms:

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

14. The Court has seen various infringing articles and printouts from the Defendant No.1 website. The Defendant No.1 has violated the statutory rights of the Plaintiffs and has also gone to the extent of claiming copyright in the content while using the expression "Copyright World News". This is nothing but blatant violation of rights in the Plaintiffs’ content and copyrighted material. The Defendant No.1?s whereabouts are unknown as the domain name is privacy protected. According to the inquires made by the Plaintiffs, various e-mail addresses given on the platforms themselves are not operational as e-mails to the said addresses have bounced back. Independent inquires have also revealed that the Defendant No.1 website may be operated by World News LLP which is a Florida based company, USA, which is Defendant No.2 herein.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

16. Owing to the peculiar nature in which the Defendant No.1 has taken extraordinary steps to hide its identity, the Plaintiffs also seek an injunction against all the ISPs arrayed as Defendants No.6 to 14 to block access to the Defendant No.1 website - www.theworldnews.net in India.

17. A perusal of the print outs of the Defendant No. 1 website reveals that the said website targets Indian customers and viewers specifically as it uses the Indian flag, has booked India specific advertisements such as of GoAir, etc. It is clear that Defendant No.1 is earning revenues from the website and by using the Plaintiffs’ mark and its content. The name Hindustan Times is prominently displayed on the website and the Plaintiff?s publishing content has been brazenly lifted. Defendants No.15 and 16 are the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology respectively.

18. The Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an injunction. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, Defendant No.1 website is restrained from copying, re-producing or storing, communicating, publishing any copyrighted content of the Plaintiffs and also from using the trademark “Hindustan Times” on its website. Defendant No.3 hosts the website of the Defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are directed to block the domain names and to block the server access to the website of Defendant No.1. The Defendants No.6 to 14 are the ISPs providing internet services in India and are directed, with immediate effect, to block access to the websites. Defendants No.15 and 16 shall give effect to the said order by an appropriate notification. The Plaintiffs are permitted to approach Defendants No.15 and 16 in case Defendant No.1 starts using any other alternate domain name or a modified domain name containing the “Hindustan Times” trademark and content. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 within one week.”

7. Despite service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have neither entered appearance, not filed written statements. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are therefore set ex parte. The other defendants complied with the order of injunction dated 31.05.2019, as recorded in the order dated 03.12.2019. By the order dated 03.12.2019, the ad interim order of injunction was also made absolute.

8. In view of the fact that the access to the impugned website has, in fact, been blocked in accordance with the orders of this Court, and the principal defendants have not appeared to contest the suit, Mr.Sidharth Chopra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, limits the reliefs sought to a decree against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of paragraph 97(a) and (b) of the plaint, and against defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in terms of paragraph 97(c) of the plaint. No other relief is pressed.

9. Mr. Chopra relies upon the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 225 (2015) DLT 234=2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) [CS(OS)1213/2011, decided on 07.02.2013], to submit that in an uncontested suit of this nature, it is not necessary to require the plaintiffs to lead evidence, and a summary disposal of the suit on the basis of the contents of the plaint, supported by the statement of truth and declaration under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are sufficient. In Satya Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), this Court held as follows:

“4. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.

5. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.”

In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, I find the view taken in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) to be squarely applicable, and have heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs finally.

10. In UTV Software (supra), the Court laid down the following illustrative factors to determine whether a particular website is liable to be declared as a "rogue website", and injuncted accordingly:

“59. In the opinion of this Court, some of the factors to be considered for determining whether the website complained of is a FIOL/Rogue Website are:

(a) whether the primary purpose of the website is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement;

(b) the flagrancy of the infringement, or the flagrancy of the facilitation of the infringement;

(c) Whether the detail of the registrant is masked and no personal or traceable detail is available either of the Registrant or of the user.

(d) Whether there is silence or inaction by such website after receipt of take down notices pertaining to copyright infringement.

(e) Whether the online location makes available or contains directories, indexes or categories of the means to infringe, or facilitate an infringement of, copyright;

(f) Whether the owner or operator of the online location demonstrates a disregard for copyright generally;

(g) Whether access to the online location has been disabled by orders from any court of another country or territory on the ground of or related to copyright infringement;

(h) whether the website contains guides or instructions to circumvent measures, or any order of any court, that disables access to the website on the ground of or related to copyright infringement; and

(i) the volume of traffic at or frequency of access to the website;

(j) Any other relevant matter.”

11. With regard to the communications exchanged between the plaintiffs and the principal defendants, Mr.Chopra has drawn my attention to the cease and desist notice addressed by the plaintiffs to defendant No.2, which did not elicit a response, and to the e-mail address available on "WHOIS" details of the domain name, which could not be delivered. Further communication with defendant No.3 revealed that the said defendant has, by communication dated 01.05.2019, offered to take down any specified links, but declined to reveal customer information, except to German law enforcement authorities upon official request.

12. Mr.Chopra submits that such a course is impracticable and cumbersome in the extreme, inasmuch as the defendants are uploading new infringing content on a large scale, on a daily basis. In my view, Mr.Chopra's submission is correct. It is not efficacious or practical to require the plaintiffs to communicate specified URLs to the defendants for each specific instance of infringement, while permitting the defendants to continue the infringing activities unchecked. The nature of news articles also implies a relatively short shelf life, which make post facto take down of the infringing content an unsatisfactory remedy.

13. Even after the ex parte ad interim order was passed, the plaintiffs have received an e-mail, purportedly from defendant Nos. 1 and 2, dated 08.06.2019, offering to enter into a commercial arrangement with the plaintiffs for redirecting 15,00,000 users every month to the plaintiffs' website. Although the plaintiffs' attempt to respond to the aforesaid e-mail was not successful, this communication also demonstrates the defendants' awareness of the present suit, and indicates that their non-appearance is deliberate.

14. The plaintiffs have placed on record several print outs from the defendants' website, and the corresponding articles published by the plaintiffs to show that the defendants are indulging in large scale infringement of the plaintiffs' copyright. The plaintiffs' registered trademark "Hindustan Times" and their registered domain name "www.hindustantimes.com" also appear on the defendants' website for the purpose of identification of the infringing articles. A perusal of the website shows that its acknowledged purpose is to aggregate content from various news services across the world. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the defendants have categorised and indexed content according to the country of origin, enabling users to access the infringing conte

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nt readily. The plaintiffs' attempt to contact the defendants and communicate with them has been rendered unsuccessful, as stated above. The contact details of the registrant of the defendants' website are also masked, and have not been revealed to the plaintiffs. The communications placed on record show that the defendants have not given any effective assurance against future infringement, and have not appeared to defend this suit, despite their knowledge of these proceedings. 15. In view of the above, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing that the defendant No.1-website falls within the parameters laid down in UTV Software (supra). The suit is therefore decreed in terms of paragraphs 97(a) and (b) of the plaint, against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and in terms of paragraphs 97(c) of the plaint, against defendant Nos. 3 and 5. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No other relief is pressed. 16. In UTV Software (supra), this Court permitted subsequent impleadment of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites - which provide access to defendant websites - by filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Joint Registrar, alongwith an affidavit and supporting evidence, confirming that the proposed defendant/website is a mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website of the injuncted defendant-websites. At Mr.Chopra's request, the same directions are made in this case as well. Any mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website impleaded by reason of this order will also be subject to the decree in terms of paragraphs 97(a) and (b) of the plaint. 17. Plaintiffs are also entitled to actual costs of the suit, including court fees and counsel's fees. The plaintiffs will file an affidavit of actual costs within two weeks. 18. The suit and pending applications are disposed of in these terms. Suit decreed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-06-2020 Entertainment City Ltd. Versus Aspek Media Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Another Versus Sobhagya Media Pvt. Ltd. (Apn Live) & Others High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Anil Chamadia Versus The Chairman Media Advisory Committee Rajya Sabha & Others High Court of Delhi
09-03-2020 Narendra Hirawat & Co. Versus Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Picturehouse Media Ltd., Chennai Versus Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
09-01-2020 M/s.Magic Frames, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - I (TDS) Versus Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 M/s. Shine Medias, a partnership firm Represented by its Partner R. Mahesh Versus M/s. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its CEO, Ekkattuthangal High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-09-2019 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-08-2019 S. Varadan, Editor-cum-Publisher, Kalaikadir Newspaper, Mahalakshmi Media Private Limited, Salem Versus Vasu Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-08-2019 HT Media Limited Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department & Others Versus Bihar State non formal cum special education Instructor Union through its Member-cum-Media In-charge, Bhagalpur & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-07-2019 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Versus Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
16-07-2019 Jatin Keshruwala Sole Proprietor, Janvi Production through its Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Keshruwala Versus M/s. DAG Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. through its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-07-2019 Gopalacharya Gautam Versus Chief Editor Himachal Dastak Media House & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
02-07-2019 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Versus Traffic Media India Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
24-06-2019 Mahavir Multi Media, Chennai, Represented by Prakash Chand Chordia, Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, Reg. by its Partner R. Sarath Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-05-2019 Indian Potash Ltd. & Others Versus Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
26-04-2019 M/s. Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Times Innovative Media Ltd., Mumbai, Represented by its Assistant Vice President B. Chinnamallikarjun High Court of Karnataka
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 G.K. Mani, President & Others Versus New Generation Media Corporation (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-04-2019 Selvel Media Services Pvt Ltd. Versus Municipal Corporation, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-03-2019 Times Innovative Media Ltd. Versus Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-02-2019 Living Media India Limited Versus Lallantop Media & Another High Court of Delhi
25-01-2019 M/s. Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. Supreme Court of India
30-11-2018 Lokmat Media Private Limited Versus Vijay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-11-2018 Atul Kanti Tripathi Versus Kuber Media Ltd. High Court of Delhi
24-09-2018 India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Visveshwaran Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-09-2018 M/s. Selvel Media Services (P) Versus Pr. Cit-4, Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
12-09-2018 M/s. D Net Malayalam communications, Ashoka house, Kaloor, Kochi, Represented by its Proprietrix Versus Reji Varghese Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
05-09-2018 Lokmat Media Private Limited, (Formerly known as Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited., Through its Sr. Manager ? Legal Syed Arshad Ali Versus Dilip & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-07-2018 Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Versus HT Media Limited High Court of Delhi
12-07-2018 Sahara One Media & Entertainment Ltd V/S Commissioner of Customs (II), (Air Special Cargo), Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
11-07-2018 Reliance Media Works Limited Versus B.R. Films High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-05-2018 HT Media Limited & Another Versus K. Satish Kumar & Another High Court of Delhi
04-05-2018 Ravindra Bhagyanarayan Thakur & Others Versus M/s. Lokmat Media Private Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-05-2018 Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai V/S Sovereign Media Marketing P. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
23-04-2018 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle II, Chennai & Another Versus Vijay Television Private Ltd., Rep. By its Chief Financial Officer, S. Rajaraman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2018 The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Media Circle II, Chennai & Another Versus Vijay Television Private Ltd., Rep. By its Chief Financial Officer, S. Rajaraman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2018 M. Lakshminath Versus Living Media India Limited Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
05-03-2018 Aditya Prakash Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Magikwand Media Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-02-2018 K.V. Jagannath Versus M/s. ODM Media Services Private Limited, Rep. by its Directors & Others High Court of Karnataka
06-02-2018 Radaan Media Works (I) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
06-02-2018 Radaan Media Works (I.) Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
18-01-2018 Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
12-01-2018 Real Time Interactive Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus Metro Mumbai Infradeveloper Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-01-2018 Real Image Media Technologies P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
03-01-2018 Vir Sanghvi Versus Outlook Media Private Limited High Court of Delhi
22-12-2017 Saregama Ltd. Versus The New Digital Media & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-11-2017 C.C.E., Jaipur-II V/S Sky Media Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
27-10-2017 Smriti Television Media & Films (P) Ltd V/S CCE, Bhopal Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-10-2017 M/s. Jaya Balajee Real Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
14-09-2017 M/s. Media Graphics, Rep. by its Partner, S. Varadharaj & Another Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2017 HT Media Ltd V/S CST, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-08-2017 H.T. Media Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Income High Court of Delhi
11-08-2017 Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-07-2017 M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., rep. By its authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan, Chennai Versus M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, reg. By its Partner R. Sarath Kumar, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-05-2017 Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
18-05-2017 Bennett Coleman & Company Limited Versus Arg Outlier Media Asianet News Private Ltd & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2017 Indusland Media & Communication Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Service Tax- I Custom Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench Bangalore
26-04-2017 Indusind Media & Communications Limited - Thro' Sanjeev Ahuja Versus State of Gujarat & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-04-2017 Saregama India Limited Versus Whackedout Media Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-04-2017 Zee Sports Ltd. Versus Nimbus Media Pte. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-03-2017 Reliance Media World Ltd V/S Commissioner of S.T., Mumbai-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
02-03-2017 The Secretary National Level Eligibility Test (NET) New Delhi & Another Versus R. Ramamurthy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2017 Raftaar Media Pvt Ltd. Versus Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-02-2017 Star Den Media Services Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Service Tax Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
09-02-2017 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulator Authority Versus Labbaik (Private) Limited & Another Supreme Court of Pakistan
08-02-2017 Alliance Media & Entertainment Ltd. C/o. Natvar Vepari & Co., Mumbai Versus ITO (TDS) 1(1), Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
31-01-2017 Zee Sports Limited Versus Nimbus Media Pte. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-01-2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Quark Media House India Pvt. Ltd. Mohali High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-12-2016 In the matter of: Morpheus Media Ventures Private Limited & Others Versus Anthony Maharaj, of Trinidad & Tobago & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-12-2016 Morpheus Media Ventures Private Limited & Others Versus Anthony Maharaj & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2016 R (on the application of Ingenious Media Holdings plc & Another) Versus Commissioners for Her Majesty?s Revenue & Customs United Kingdom Supreme Court
15-10-2016 M/s. Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-10-2016 M/s. Thai Media Entertainment Rep by its Proprietor Abuthahir Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Secretary to Government Tamil Development and Information (Exhibition) Department Secretariat & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s. It Net Infocom Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2016 Nine Media & Information Services Ltd. Versus Hero Honda Motors Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
29-09-2016 B. Lakshmikanth Versus The General Manager (Net Work-II), Appointing Authority, State Bank of India - Loal Head Office & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-08-2016 D Net Malayalam Digitals Pvt.Ltd, Represented by Its Managing Director, V. N. Santhosh Versus Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., Represented by Its Regional Head, Suresh Ramachandran. High Court of Kerala
16-08-2016 Maganlal Savani & Another Versus Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-07-2016 Net Ram Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-04-2016 Eros International Media Limited Versus Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-03-2016 Twenty First Century Media Private Limited Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Nia) High Court of Delhi
21-03-2016 Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. Versus HT Media Limited High Court of Delhi
11-03-2016 Sambhav Media Limited Versus Karnavati Club Limited High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
25-02-2016 Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) V/S TAM Media Research Private Limited Competition Commission of India
29-01-2016 Living Media India Ltd. & Another Versus Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
22-12-2015 Kalanidhi Maran Chairman & M.D., Sun TV. Net Work Limited Versus Mavuluri Venugopal Reddy & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
21-12-2015 Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Versus Saturday Sunday Media Internet & Others High Court of Delhi
07-12-2015 M/s. Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. Versus M/s Media Pro Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd. & Others Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
25-11-2015 M/s. Manipal Media Network Limited Udupi District, Udupi represented by its authorized signatory Sri. P. Vaman Mallya Versus The State of Karnataka Department of Finance by its Secretary, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
17-11-2015 In Re: Polimer Media Private Limited Versus TAM Media Research Private Limited Competition Commission of India
16-10-2015 Eastern Media Limited through the Editor, Sambad & Others Versus Madhusudan Padhi High Court of Orissa
08-10-2015 Inception Media LLP Versus Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-09-2015 M/s. S.S.T. Media Private Limited (In Liqn.) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
09-09-2015 National Stock Exchange of India Limited Versus Moneywise Media Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay