Madras High Court
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd on 5 January, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
C.S. No.740 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S. No.740 of 2016
and
O.A. Nos.900 and 901 of 2016
and
A. No.6613 of 2016
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Senior Manager (Legal),
George Thomas ... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M/s.K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.48/310, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. M/s.Sun TV Network Ltd.,
Murasoli Maran Towers
73, MRC Nagar Main Road,
MRC Nagar,
Chennai – 600 028,
Tamil Nadu,
India.
3. M/s.Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd.,
15, Jaganathan Road,
Near Ganpat Hotel,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 034. ... Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.S. No.740 of 2016
Prayer : Plaint has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules
r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. praying for the following judgment and
decree :-
a) by way of a permanent injunction to restrain further publication,
telecast and/or dissemination, and/or exhibition and/or podcast of the
offending advertisements of the 1st Defendant by the Defendants and
any other person whether for public or private viewing/circulation
through any media whether through television channels, internet media
and/or satellite channels and/or exhibition in cinema theatre/movie halls/
screens and/or through any other media to promote the 1st Defendant's
"Sunland" Refined Sunflower Oil by depicting the Plaintiffs "Gold
Winner" Refined Sunflower Oil (RSO) in a derogatory, insulting,
disparaging, misleading and in a pejorative manner in the guise of
comparative advertisement using picture/still of the Plaintiff's "Gold
Winner" Refined Sunflower Oil (RSO) 5 Litre Can with the blurred label
as the "Other Cooking Oils" in the story board which is filed as a plaint
document along with soft copy of the impugned offending advertisement
in a compact disc as a material object
b) by way of a permanent injunction to restrain 1 st Defendant from
using/depicting any other packing material of the Plaintiff resembling
packing material of the Plaintiff resembling or closing resembling the
Plaintiffs "Gold Winner" Refined Sunflower Oil(RSO) packing material
in any manner whether directly or indirectly by 1 st Defendants, men,
agents, distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, stockiest,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
C.S. No.740 of 2016
representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one
claiming through to promote the 1st Defendant's "Sunland" Refined
Sunflower Oil them or under them in the guise of comparative
advertisement.
c) by way of a permanent injunction to restrain the 1 st Defendant,
their men, agents, distributors, marketers. Franchisees, dealers, stockiest.
representatives; advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one
claiming through them or under them form from publishing, printing
through newsprint, newspaper magazine, journals, magazines containing
the stills / picture / character / diagrams /dialogue containing message or
like message from the impugned offending advertisement depicting the
plaintiff's “Gold Winner" Refined Sunflower 5 Litre Can with the blurred
label as "Other Cooking Oils" or any other packing material of the
Plaintiff resembling or closing resembling the Plaintiff's packing material
for “Gold Winner" Refined Sunflower Oil in a derogatory, insulting,
disparaging, misleading and in a pejorative manner or in any manner
without the permission of the Plaintiff whether directly or indirectly in the
guise of comparative advertisement to promote the 1st Defendant's
"Sunland" Refined Sunflower Oil.
d) pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs One
Thousand only) (Rs.25,01,000/-) as interim compensation for attempting
to damage and to cause willful loss to the Plaintiff by conceiving and
telecasting and exhibiting the offensive disparaging advertisement to
promote Defendant' s "Sunland" refined sunflower oil in enclosed story
board and soft copy of the aforesaid impugned advertisement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
C.S. No.740 of 2016
e) towards costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R. Anishkumar
For 1st Defendant : Mr.M. Aravind Subramanian
for M/s.R.Divya Priya
For 2nd Defendant : Mr.R. Palaniandavan
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the 1st defendant submits on instructions
that no longer the 1st defendant is airing the subject disputed disparaging
advertisement in any of the TV channels including the 2nd and 3rd
defendant TV channels. An endorsement to that effect has been made in
the Court bundle by the learned counsel for the 1st defendant.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 2 and 3 also
would submit that no longer they are airing the disputed disparaging
advertisement in any of their TV channels. The said statement is also
recorded.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on instructions would
submit that if the same is recorded in this Court's order and based on the
same, the suit can be closed.
4. After recording the endorsement made by the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the 1st defendant on instructions and after recording the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 that no longer
the defendants 2 and 3 are airing the disputed disparaging
advertisement, which is the subject matter of the suit, this suit is closed.
Consequently connected applications are also closed.
05.01.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
vsi2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
