['Bad Boy Billionaires' Series] 'Approach Trial Court', Patna HC Tells Netflix While Directing The Court To Pass An Order Within 2 Weeks [Read Order]

The Single Bench of Justice Birendra Kumar has asked 'Netflix', the appellant before it to approach the trial judge who has been directed to pass a reasoned order according to the law within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It may be noted that in this matter, Netflix had earlier moved SC, wherein, on Wednesday (02^nd September), the Supreme Court had refused to entertain OTT platform Netflix's petition against the Araria Court's order restraining the use of Subrata Roy's name in the upcoming web series 'Bad Boy Billionaires'.

The Bench presided over by CJI SA Bobde asked Netflix to approach the appropriate forum for relief and stated that the Supreme Court was not that forum.

The background of the Case

Respondent no.1, Sahara India, brought Title Suit No. 220 of 2020 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Araria for issuance of permanent/mandatory injunction restraining the defendants including the appellant (Netflix) and their employees/agents/associates from releasing the documentary serial titled "Bad Boy Billionaires: India".

In the Suit, the prayer was on the ground that the defendants (including Netflix) had initially contacted the plaintiff (Subrata Roy) for his cooperation in preparation of a documentary serial titled "Billionaires" to depict the life history of the people who were involved in the economic growth of India.

However, as alleged in the prayer, when the trailer of the series was published on 20.08.2020, its title was "Bad boy Billionaires" containing defamatory and scandalous contents against the plaintiff. The documentary serial was to be premiered on 02.09.2020 and it was to be displayed on 03.09.2020.

By the impugned order dated 28.08.2020, the learned court below granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1.

Arguments put forth by the Counsel of Netflix

The senior counsel for the appellant (Netflix) submitted that though e-mail address of all the defendants were mentioned against their respective names in the plaint, the Court below ignored issuance of notice to the defendants before passing the impugned order.

The senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that the contents of the documentary was neither produced before the learned Court below nor the Court below had occasion to examine the same to prima facie satisfy itself that the same contains scandalous remark and as such, the plaintiff has got a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction in his favour.

He contended that only bald statement made in the plaint had been relied upon by the learned court below for recording a finding that the plaintiff had got a prima facie case.

His next contention was that the entire plaint would reveal that the documentary would tarnish the public image of Mr. Subrata Roy and Mr. Subrata Roy is not a party to the Suit, therefore, the partnership firm i.e Sahara India has no locus standi to raise the aforesaid issue before the Court of law on behalf of an individual partner Mr. Subrata Roy.

He next contended that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the impugned order reveals that the Court below exercised power under proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.

[Note: This provision empowers the Court to grant an ad-interim injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party.]

In this context, the Court observed, that

"However, the impugned order reveals that the case has been adjourned for 02.12.2020 whereas Rule 3-A CPC says that in such circumstances when ad interim injunction has been passed without notice to the opposite party, the application should be disposed of within thirty days from the date on which injunction was granted." (emphasis supplied)

The Court further ordered,

"Since the parties have already appeared and the impugned order is interim in nature, let the appellant raise the aforesaid points before the trial judge who shall pass a reasoned order according to the law within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." (emphasis supplied)

The defendants were also directed to file their response before the Court below at the earliest, after serving a copy of the same to the appellant or to the Counsel for the appellant appearing in the case, "so that the injunction matter can be finally disposed of by the trial judge within the time aforesaid."

Notably, last month, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the plea moved by fugitive diamond merchant Mehul Choksi seeking access to the preview of the Netflix show Big Boy Billionaire prior to its release on September 02.

While dismissing the plea, the Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla noted that the remedy sought by the Petitioner is private in nature which cannot be entertained in a writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Also, recently a local civil court in Hyderabad had issued an interim stay restraining Netflix from airing its web series 'Bad Boy Billionaires-India' on a petition filed by B Ramalinga Raju who was convicted in the multi-crore accounting scandal of Satyam Computer Services Limited.

Case Details:

Case Title: Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Sahara India and others

Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.251 of 2020

Quorum: Justice Birendra Kumar

Appearance: Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, Advocates Amit Shrivastava, Girish Pandey, Twisha Shrivastava, Thomas George, Tanvi Sinha and Manas Gaur (for the Appellant); Senior Advocate P. K. Shahi, Advocates Mayank Rukhaiyar, Kaushik Moitra, Sonam Gupta, Ishita Jain, Karnika Vallabh, Sonakshi Banerjee (For the Respondent nos. 2 to 4)