IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 3702/2014
  
  
  
  STAR INDIA PVT LTD.
  
  ..... Plaintiff
  
  Through : Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, Sr.Advocate, with
  
  Mr.S.Rajagopal, Mr.Sidharth Chopra,
  
  Ms.Sneha Jain and Ms.S.Dutt,
  
  Advocates.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  SUJIT JHA and ORS
  
  ..... Defendants
  
  Through : None.
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   02.12.2014
  
  
  
  I.A. No.24097/2014
  
  
  
  This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 1
  read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing the originals of
  the documents.
  
  For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to originals being produced at the time of admission/denial of
  the documents.
  
  The application is disposed of.
  
  I.A. No.24098/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)
  
  This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from
  filing the certified copies, clear copies, translations of documents and
  the left side margin.
  
  For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed,
  subject to just exceptions.
  
  The application is disposed of.
  
  I.A. No.24099/2014 (u/S 151 CPC)
  
  For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is exempted
  to issue notice u/S 80 CPC to defendant Nos. 92 and 93.
  
  The application is disposed of.
  
  CS(OS) No.3702/2014
  
  Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
  
  Issue summons to the defendants through all modes of service
  including e-mail in addition, returnable on 24th February, 2015.
  
  I.A. No.24096/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 and 2 CPC)
  
  1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, accounts
  of profits, delivery up, damages etc.
  
  2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a leading sports
  broadcaster in India and the exclusive licensee of media rights to
  various sporting events / properties. He is also the owner of a network
  of sports television channels and by virtue of necessary downlink
  permissions from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, he has the
  sole and Exclusive Right to broadcast and distribute the channels in
  India i.e. Star Sports 1, STAR Sports 2, Star Sports 3, STAR Sports 4,
  Fox Sports News, STAR Sports HD 1 and Star Sports HD 2 (collectively
  referred to as ?Star Sports Channels?). All the Star Sports Channels are
  pay channels. The Star Sports Channels carry various exciting sporting
  events in the field of cricket, football, F1, Badminton, tennis, hockey
  etc., such as the various international and domestic cricket matches
  organized by various cricket bodies.
  
  3. The plaintiff has internet and mobile presence through its website
  / mobile application www.starsports.com and the starsports.com app which
  is a dedicated digital sports entertainment service (transmitted through
  internet and mobile) on which the digital rights to various sporting
  events / properties are exploited / displayed by the plaintiff. These
  internet services through www.starsports.com are an online destination
  that brings the best of live sports in India. It offers to viewers,
  
  sports content on live, delayed live, video on demand and pay per view basis. The internet services through www.starsports.com are accessible
  from a browser on a laptop, personal computer or any hand-held device.
  
  4. It is further averred that Cricket Australia is a national
  governing body for the game of cricket in Australia. Cricket Australia
  is responsible for the management and development of every form of
  cricket in Australia. Cricket Australia is also a foundation member of
  cricket?s world governing body, the International Cricket Council (ICC)
  and is one of their 10 full members. Cricket Australia, as a part of its
  duties and responsibilities, is organizing the upcoming India-Australia
  2014-15 cricket series in Australia. The series was scheduled to be
  played between 4th December, 2014 to 7th January, 2015 and comprises of
  04 (four) test matches. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the
  first test is expected to be deferred. The second test of the Series is
  scheduled to be played from 12th December, 2014. The schedule of
  matches/events for the India-Australia Series 2014-15 is filed herewith.
  
  5. It is further averred that the plaintiff has acquired Exclusive
  Rights, Audio Rights, Internet Rights, Mobile Rights for India-Australia
  Series 2014-15 for a substantial consideration by virtue of agreement
  with Cricket Australia. These Exclusive Rights include the live, delayed,
  highlights, on demand, and repeat broadcasting of the India-Australia
  2014-15 (Series Matches) through various transmission platforms. The
  plaintiff can produce a confirmatory letter for cricket Australia qua its
  Exclusive Rights as and when directed by this Court.
  
  6. It is stated in the plaint that having the Exclusive Rights, the
  plaintiff will be broadcasting and communicating the live, delayed,
  highlights, clips and repeat telecast of the 2014 India-Australia Series
  matches in India through the Star Sports Channels. The plaintiff, who
  also has the Internet and Mobile Rights for the 2014 India ? Australia
  Series, is also hosting, streaming, broadcasting, retransmitting and
  sharing the 2014 India-Australia Series Matches and content related
  thereto, on its website www.starsports.com and also as a mobile software
  application STARSPORTS.COM compatible with iOS and Android platforms. The
  plaintiff has paid a significant price for the acquisition of the
  exclusive Broadcasting Rights to CRICKET AUSTRALIA by virtue of which the
  plaintiff has the exclusive authority and license to exploit and / or
  authorize the exploitation of Exclusive Rights qua the 2014 India-
  Australia Series for the territory of India. An entity which is not
  authorized by Cricket Australia to broadcast, retransmit, host, stream,
  make available for viewing and download, provide access to or communicate
  to the public, the broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia Series Matches
  on any platform including the Internet and mobile platforms, in India
  cannot so broadcast, retransmit, host, stream etc., the broadcast of the
  2014 India-Australia Series Matches and any content related thereto in
  India. Any entity which so broadcasts, retransmits, hosts, streams, etc.,
  the broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia Series Matches and the related
  content thereto in India on any platform including the Internet and
  Mobile without the authorization of the plaintiff will be interfering
  with the Exclusive Rights of the plaintiff vesting by virtue of its
  arrangement with Cricket Australia or the statutory broadcast
  reproduction right conferred by Sec.37 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957
  (which is the subject matter of the present suit).
  
  7. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has made
  
  substantial investments in securing the Exclusive Rights for the 2014 India-Australia Series. Since, international cricket matches are
  organized and played only for a few days in the year, the potential
  opportunities to exploit the Exclusive Rights associated with a cricket
  match are primarily available only during the live broadcast of such
  matches. The plaintiff thus expect to earn substantial revenues through
  its internet and mobile app services during the 2014 India-Australia
  Series by offering live broadcasts of matches as broadcast on the
  plaintiff?s channels, repeat broadcast, on demand content access to the
  matches, customized clips, blogs, contests etc.
  
  8. Therefore, any hosting, streaming, making available for viewing
  and/or communication to the public of the 2014 India-Australia Series
  Matches, as broadcast on the plaintiff?s Channels by any means on any
  platform including the internet and mobile, by any of the named or
  unnamed defendant websites would be illegal and amount to violation of
  the broadcast reproduction rights of the plaintiff protected under
  Section 37 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
  
  9. It is submitted that it is not just the plaintiff who is the
  beneficiary of the rebroadcast and communication of the broadcast of the
  2014 India-Australia Series Matches in India through internet and mobile,
  but also Government agencies and the general public including other
  stakeholders such as sponsors, team owners, brands, media, well-wishers
  etc. The acts of infringement of the Exclusive Rights and broadcast
  reproduction rights of the plaintiff will not only cost the plaintiff,
  losses of substantial sums of money, but will also take away the
  legitimate revenues of the Government through service tax, etc. which are
  payable on the subscription fees payable by these named and unnamed
  defendants, if they conduct their business legitimately. The interests of
  these entities / persons would also be prejudiced in the event the named
  and unnamed defendants? websites are not restrained from illegally
  hosting, broadcasting, transmitting, making available for viewing and/or
  communicating to the public, the broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia
  Series Matches in India without the plaintiff?s permission. Hence it is
  imperative that the injunction orders as prayed for by the plaintiff in
  the instant plaint and the accompanying interim injunction application be
  allowed in the interests of justice.
  
  10. It is mentioned in the plaint that the defendants No.1 to 73 own,
  operate and manage the various websites identified in the Memo of Parties
  and are located all across the world under the name and style and at the
  locations as mentioned in the Memo of Parties of the instant suit. It is
  submitted that many of these websites are anonymous in nature and it is
  virtually impossible to locate the owners of such websites or contact
  details of such owners. It is submitted that many of these defendant
  Websites also hide behind domain privacy services offered by various
  domain name Registrars. Such domain privacy service enables a website
  owner to hide behind a veil and not disclose any contact details
  publicly, to protect its privacy. When a website seeks the protection of
  such domain privacy services, only the information of a forwarding
  service is made publicly available and no personal details, contact
  address or e-mail IDs of owners of such websites is made publicly
  available. It is extremely difficult to get in touch with these websites
  to call upon them to cease their infringing conduct. Unless the domain
  name registrars of the respective websites which use such domain privacy
  
  services are directed to disclose the details of the owners of the defendant websites, it would be impossible to get their address, location
  and contact details.
  
  The services provided by the defendant Websites are not restricted
  to their country or city of incorporation but due to the very nature of
  internet, are available all across the world, including, without
  limitation, in India, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
  It is stated that the defendant Websites are not authorised to host,
  stream, broadcast, retransmit, exhibit, make available for viewing and
  download, provide access to and/or communicate to the public, the
  broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia Series Matches and the content
  related thereto in India including the plaintiff?s broadcast in relation
  to the 2014 India-Australia Series Matches and the content related
  thereto. Thus, the act of Websites amounts to infringement of the
  Exclusive Rights acquired by the plaintiff from CRICKET AUSTRALIA as also
  it Broadcast Reproduction Rights in terms of Section 37 of the Copyright
  Act, 1957. It is submitted that a fresh cause of action arises against
  the defendant Websites every time such defendants host, stream,
  broadcast, retransmit, etc. the broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia
  Series Matches and the content related thereto in India including the
  plaintiff?s broadcast to its users, including in Delhi, without obtaining
  permission from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to institute
  a fresh suit based on such fresh cause of action against the defendants.
  
  11. It is submitted that the instant suit is being filed primarily
  against the defendant Websites which are such websites which
  predominantly carry infringing content. These websites provide illegal
  content either through (a) hosting, streaming, broadcasting, making
  available for viewing and download, providing access to and communicating
  to the public, the content directly, for free, without any registration
  and such availability of content is supported by advertisements featuring
  on these websites, or (b) through the mode of Subscription Video-On-
  Demand (VOD) or pay per view basis where users are required to first
  register on these websites and then subscribe and make payment to access
  the illegal content hosted, streamed etc. by these websites. They earn
  their revenues either through advertisements dependent upon user traffic,
  or through advertisement and subscription revenues. Due to the very
  nature of internet where it is very easy to engage in illegal activities
  and avoid detection, internet piracy is thriving. After conducting proper
  due diligence for months and gathering evidence of past infringing
  conduct over a period of time, the plaintiff has shortlisted such Rogue
  Websites These Rogue Websites not only violate and infringe the
  intellectual property rights of the various right holders, but also
  substantially erode and dilute the value of the said intellectual
  properties by taking away significant revenues from all the stakeholders.
  
  12. Owing to the fact that the defendant Websites themselves are, as a
  whole, instruments / vehicles of infringement, it is not practical /
  viable to target / seek a restraint against individual or some specific
  URLs belonging to the defendant Websites. It is submitted that in case a
  URL is blocked or disabled, it is extremely easy for the website to
  provide access to the blocked content through another URL since a mere
  change of a character in the URL string will results in a completely new
  URL. Consequently, it is extremely easy for a website to circumvent and
  thus nullify any order that directs blocking of specific URLs since such
  websites can very easily provide access to the same content by merely
  
  changing one character in the URL string. Thus, unless access to the entire website of the named and unnamed defendants is blocked, there is
  no alternate and efficient remedy that is open to the plaintiff. It is
  for this reason that the plaintiff are seeking appropriate orders
  directing internet service providers from blocking access to the Rogue
  Websites. Further, since most of these websites are anonymous in nature
  and operate behind a veil of secrecy, they are faceless entities and are
  not obliged to follow any orders of any court. Consequently, it is humbly
  submitted that there is no other remedy or method available to the
  plaintiff to protect its valuable exclusive rights except to block access
  to such websites in India.
  
  13. In order to protect and enforce its Exclusive Rights, the plaintiff
  engaged the services of a third party agency to monitor websites and
  gather evidence of their infringing activity. Necessary affidavit of a
  representative of the said agency detailing the activities performed by
  them in discharge of their services to the plaintiff is filed herewith.
  After carefully monitoring the activities of various websites for the
  past 3 (three) events for which the plaintiff had exclusive rights, and
  in light of the evidence gathered against such websites, a list of 73
  (seventy three) ?Rogue Websites? has been prepared, whose primary
  business appears to be providing illegal content for viewing and
  download. Thousands of legal notices have been served to these Rogue
  Websites on behalf of the plaintiff for infringement calling upon them to
  cease from indulging in such infringing activities. Till date, these
  Rogue Websites have not complied with the legitimate demands of the
  plaintiff and continue to brazenly and blatantly provide sports and other
  content without authorization. It is thus submitted that these Rogue
  Websites are vehicles of infringement, which are, primarily and
  predominantly, engaged in the business of hosting, streaming,
  broadcasting, making available for viewing and download, providing access
  to and communicating to its users, illegal content. Unless access in
  India to such Rogue Websites is blocked, the plaintiff?s valuable
  exclusive rights and broadcast reproduction rights will continue to be
  openly violated by these Rogue Websites. Copies of notices issued to a
  few of the Rogue Websites on behalf of the plaintiff in the past and the
  notices served by plaintiff before the commencement, and during the
  continuation, of the 2014 India-Australia Series are filed herewith.
  
  14. Specific allegations are made by the plaintiff in the plaint that
  these Rogue Websites are directly competing with the plaintiff?s STAR
  SPORTS internet and mobile services since both of them are targeting
  those cricket fans, including in Delhi, who want to watch the 2014 India-
  Australia Series Matches and the content related thereto through the
  internet and mobile media platforms. Considering the substantial
  investments which have been made by the plaintiff in acquisition of the
  exclusive rights for the 2014 India-Australia Series, as also the
  significant expenses incurred by the plaintiff in setting-up the
  infrastructure of STARSPORTS.COM internet and mobile service (video
  player, internet bandwidth, deployment of Digital Rights Management,
  development of applications across various media platforms etc.),
  advertising, promoting and broadcasting the 2014 India-Australia Series
  matches on the internet and mobile through its digital portal
  STARSPORTS.COM, and bearing in mind that these Rogue Websites do not make
  any investments in acquisition of the exclusive rights for the 2014
  India-Australia Series nor do they take any efforts in legalizing their
  infringing activity despite repeated reminders and legal notices, these
  
  Rogue Websites are misappropriating and unfairly competing with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is thus legally entitled to seek protection
  against such unfair competition and commercial misappropriation by the
  Rogue Websites and dilution and erosion of its valuable intellectual
  property rights. Hence, the plaintiff is compelled to initiate the
  present suit against various websites identified herein above who have
  indulged in the past, and continue to indulge, in piracy and infringement
  of the plaintiff?s exclusive Rights and the plaintiff?s exclusive
  Broadcast Reproduction Rights. Internet piracy has become a big menace
  and a threat to the value of the intellectual property rights of various
  right holders. It is crucial that the plaintiff is able to promptly
  restrain such internet piracy, unfair competition and infringement of the
  plaintiff?s exclusive rights vesting by virtue of its arrangement with
  Cricket Australia and its exclusive broadcast reproduction rights in
  relation to the 2014 India-Australia Series. On account of the short
  duration of the event, the plaintiff must be accorded protection for its
  legal rights failing which the entire suit and the accompanying
  injunction application would be rendered infructuous thereby causing
  immense prejudice, harm and irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
  
  15. It is stated in the plaint that these Rogue Websites, by providing
  free access to the sports content, are able to ensure regular, consistent
  and high user traffic to its own illegal website. Since advertising
  revenues on the internet is linked to the user traffic to a particular
  website or webpage, these Rogue Websites are able to demand and collect
  high advertising revenues at the cost of the plaintiff. Consequently, the
  brazen and blatant infringing activities of these Rogue Websites set at
  naught, the complete business of sports broadcasting of the plaintiff.
  
  It is further submitted that the services being provided by the said
  websites also pose a huge security risk. These Rogue Websites collect
  confidential information when users register with them. It is thus
  extremely important and in the interest of right holders and the public
  at large that such illegal and Rogue Websites which are vehicles of
  infringement are restrained from conducting their illegal activities at
  once.
  
  16. The specific statement in the plaint is that the Defendnt Nos. 1
  to 73 are faceless entities such that it is virtually impossible to
  locate the owners of such websites or their contact details. If the
  plaintiff was to wait and identify specific websites and collect evidence
  of infringement against such specific websites, they would lose a great
  amount of time and it is likely that the 2014 India-Australia Series
  matches would have come to an end by then. This loss of time in
  enforcement of their rights would lead to an immediate and irreparable
  loss, injury and damage to the plaintiff. There is no other way for the
  plaintiff to protect its valuable exclusive rights except to block access
  to such websites in India. The said unknown websites are engaged in the
  same line of business as the named defendant Websites. The plaintiff
  apprehends that in light of the past conduct of these unknown websites
  during popular sporting events, these Websites, are likely to host,
  stream, broadcast, etc. the broadcast of the 2014 India-Australia Series
  Matches including the plaintiff?s broadcast in relation to the 2014
  India-Australia Series Matches, through their websites. It is submitted
  that the unknown and known websites are being joined as defendants
  together in the present suit proceedings on account of identity and/or
  similarity of their business and the identity/similarity in their
  
  activity/transactions in infringing or intending to infringe the exclusive rights of the plaintiff. It is submitted that if separate suits
  are brought against the said defendants individually, common questions of
  law and / or fact would arise. As demonstrated above, the right to sue
  against the defendants arises out of the same act or transaction or
  series of acts or transactions, i.e. infringement of the plaintiff?s
  exclusive rights vesting in it by virtue of its arrangement with Cricket
  Australia and also its exclusive Broadcast Reproduction Rights in
  relation to the 2014 India-Australia Series to be broadcast on the
  plaintiff?s Channels.
  
  17. This Court has, in the past, in the case of Taj Television vs.
  Rajan Mandal [2003] FSR 22, recognized that Indian Courts have the power
  to pass orders against such unknown ?John Doe? defendants in exercise of
  its inherent jurisdiction. In fact, Indian Courts have already passed
  restraint orders against such unknown ?John Doe? or ?Ashok Kumar?
  defendants in previous cases, which orders are filed in the present suit.
  
  18. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 to 73
  shall hereinafter be, collectively referred to as ?Defendant Websites?.
  The defendant Websites have been arrayed as defendants in the present
  suit, as the cause of action against the them in the present suit arises
  from the same set of acts or transactions or series of acts or
  transactions, and therefore, common issues of fact and / or law would
  arise. The exact constitution of the defendant Websites is not known to
  the plaintiff, at this time, and can be ascertained only after discovery
  in the present suit. The plaintiff undertakes to amend the memo of
  parties and substitute the unknown defendants with such parties who are
  found to be engaged in infringing the plaintiff?s exclusive rights and
  Broadcast Reproduction Rights as described more particularly herein
  below. However, in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Civil
  Procedure, 1908, such defendants along with the identified defendants are
  believed to have a common source of its illegal activity and hence the
  right to relief in respect of, and arising out of, this same act /
  transaction / series of acts / transactions exists against these
  defendants, jointly or severally. The defendants and all parties known
  and unknown are thus jointly and severally liable for infringement and
  violation of the plaintiff?s exclusive rights and the plaintiff are
  entitled to all remedies available to it under common law and under
  Section 55 read with Sections 37 and 39A of the Copyright Act.
  
  19. The plaintiff has also arrayed the defendant No. 74 to 91,
  Department of Telecommunications (DoT) (D-92), and the Department of
  Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY) (D-93), for similar
  reason, i.e. to enforce / ensure compliance with any orders of injunction
  to protect its rights from being infringed by the defendant websites
  within the territory of India. The limited relief being claimed against
  the D-92 and D-93 is to ensure compliance of any orders of this Court in
  favour of the plaintiff, by disabling access into India of such Rogue
  Websites. It is submitted that since no formal remedy / relief as
  prescribed under the Copyright Act, 1957 is being claimed against the D-
  92 and D-93, the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
  1908 have no application. By virtue of the obligations that have been
  imposed upon an ISP under its License Agreement with the Department of
  Telecommunications, the ISPs are mandated to ensure that content which
  infringes intellectual property is not carried on its network. Per clause
  33.3 of the License Agreement for the Provision of Internet Services
  
  between the Department of Telecommunications and the concerned ISP, and clause 40.3 of the License Agreement for Unified License (Access
  Services) between the Department of Telecommunication and the concerned
  ISP, whichever is applicable, the ISPs have an obligation to ensure that
  content which infringes intellectual property is not carried on its
  network.
  
  The plaintiff has issued letters to the ISP defendants dated
  27.11.2014 informing them of the illegal nature of activities of these
  Rogue Websites and calling upon them to disable access to them. However,
  till date, no reply has been received from the said ISPs. It is submitted
  that the said ISPs continue to provide access to these Rogue Websites.
  Copies of the letter dated 27.11.2014 has been filed.
  
  20. Having heard Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, the learned Senior counsel for the
  plaintiff, who has argued the matter on all the issues in the matter as
  well as the averments made in the plaint and documents placed on record,
  it appears to the Court that the plaintiff has been able to make out a
  strong prima facie case for grant of ex-parte order. The balance of
  convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the
  defendants. In case the interim orders are not passed, the plaintiff
  would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
  
  21. In light of the above, the following ad-interim orders are passed: -
  
  (a) The defendant Nos. 1 to 73 websites, their 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, are restrained from in any manner hosting, streaming,
  broadcasting, rebroadcasting, retransmitting, exhibiting, making
  available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and / or
  communicating to the public, (including to its subscribers and users),
  through the internet, in any manner whatsoever, the plaintiff?s
  broadcast, as broadcast / contained in its Channels Star Sports 1, Star
  Sports 2, Star Sports 3, Star Sports 4, Star Sports HD1 and Star Sports
  HD2 in relation to the upcoming India ? Australia 2014-15 Cricket Series
  matches and content, so as to infringe the plaintiff?s broadcast
  reproduction rights.
  
  (b) The defendant Nos. 1 to 73, their 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 are further restrained from in any manner hosting, streaming,
  broadcasting, rebroadcasting, retransmitting, exhibiting, making
  available for viewing and downloading, providing access to and / or
  communicating to the public, (including to its subscribers and users),
  through the internet in any manner whatsoever, the broadcast of the 2014-
  15 India ? Australia Cricket Series content, amounting to unfair
  competition and commercial misappropriation of the plaintiff?s rights.
  
  (c) The defendant Nos. 74 to 91, their directors, 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, are directed to ensure and secure compliance of this order.
  
  (d) The defendant Nos. 92 and 93 are directed to ensure and secure
  compliance of this order by calling upon the various internet and telecom
  
  service providers registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by the plaintiff in the instant suit, be infringing
  its exclusive rights, within five days from the date of receipt of the
  copy of the order.
  
  22. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within one week
  from today.
  
  23. Registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to
  defendant Nos.92 and 93 by way of e-mail and fax.
  
  24. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the
  plaintiff.
  
  
  
  
  
   S.P.GARG, J.
  
  DECEMBER 02, 2014
  
  sa
  
  
  
  
  
  CS (OS) No.3702/2014 Page 1 of 18