{"id":226803,"date":"2009-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-14T14:39:02","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T09:09:02","slug":"ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi Malimath<\/div>\n
 \n\nEN THEE 2-31%: COURT' (>13 KARNaTAKA, BgNGALQ;R :\u00e9:;\"\n\nDATED was THE 31% DAY' 01:' JULY 2002:: V \"  \n\nBEFQRE\n\nTHE H(}N'BLE MR. JUS'FI{';E R}w1:1\u00a7\u00a74AL1M;xffE-E   \n\nway. No. 224212\u00aeS\"~s\u00a7M\u00a7\u00e9?Ci    \nBE'Z\"WEEN:~  %\n\nM13. ZEE mawss LIMITED, \"A __ ,. \nHAVTNG ITS REGISTERED :;;;N''1'3%_At~:\u00ab:':::_:_  _ __\n\nHKVENG nsfs BRAWH Cwiiifg\n\nAT N0. 3RB._FLO'f)R,\"  =   \n\nUNITED MA?\u20acSI'ONf:\u00a7,V * \n\n39991.9. ROAD, * V '\n\nBANGri';Lf3RE,  '\n\n4,3313. B;.'~.ei%_i':'s-  -  V V\n AUfmoR';s:fa:;3 $;@NAT@-ivy\",\n\"MR. g%NuL3?_VGHA\u00a7\u00a7$'DVRASHEKARAN.\n\n'   (BY S'Ri\"UD\u00a3&Y2V\u00a7i_I%.i3LLA, S;\u00a53'.;NiC}R SOUNSEL FOR\n\nPE'I'i'f'EONER\n\nM; S. Hs'--f}Li~gA mm HGLLA, ADVGCATE}\n\n\u00abA ,,   \n\n '._ C\u00a7.f\u00a7PAP\u00a7'f E}I'~E'}\"ERPR\u00a3SE8',\n\n;{}E3AYARANGzi PICTURES,\n W1 'B' STREET',\n\nC%A\u00a7*\u00e9i)HIE\\iAGPsR,\n\nBANGALGRE \u00ab 9,\n\n\n\n \n\nREP. BY ITS PRGPRIETGR,\nMR. KP. SRIKANTH,\nEAVING NEW OFFICE\n\n851' MAMATHA APARTMENTS,\n'A' BLOCK, 13'? FLOOR,\n\n-41\"\" MAIN ROAI3,\nGAWDHENAGAR,\nBANGALORE ---> 9.\n\nEM}\n\nASIANET COMMUNICZATEONS L*1':),,  \nASIANET CQMIPLEX, \nPULEYARKONAM 23.0.,   ~\nTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM --- \u00a7955?3,  \nKERALA, ' ._  \nHavlysza ITS BRMCH O\u00a7'F'\u00a7CE:\"= \n\nAT N0. 292, _ .. \nEMBASSY BUILDING, '   '  u V \nOPP. POLECEZ CDMMESSIQNAER'S{_E3\u00a7F'i?I\u00a7.?3E';,'~ \n\n:Np'A:\u00e9TRY\u20ac'RQ;;'\u00a3\u00a7,, \"' 7-   '\\\nBANGALQRE2.y-\"'$\u20ac:{)QG3,;*  ~\n\nREP. 333' :'r3\u00ab..}j._ 4' _  _\nMANA#.:_}EN_G t;\u00a3Ri.i3z\u20ac?:I'\u20ac:\u00bb:~2';,%.'j%*-._,,_ -\n* ' ' V . ' RES?()I\\\u00a7DEN\"I3\ngay SR1\" }\u00a7{}f}3{A\u00a7\":?A' 5;; 'c:1,'ADvo{:,a'rES ma {:1 R2}\n,*'{BY_SRi__i\"\u00a7AEg\u00e9\u00a78'?s\u00a3AMY\"; 'AB-\u00a5,'0GATE FOR\n$i\u00a7'i.S\ufb01{i'\u00a7i\u00a7H'\u20ac3. mxxaa, ADV\u20acZ)CA'}\"E mm R~1}\n\n   'E33323 PRAYINC': TC} SET ASIDE THE'; ORDER\n \u00abQ? 'E'\u00a7\u00a7Ej44TRI\u00a3;L' mi 1112.203? ?\u00a7\u00a7SS\u00a3?;D IN LA.E'\u20ac(}.2 Em\n_' ..__e:;i$.Na.5:3:'9g!2G0? 'mm ANNEXE. 95: THE FILE 0:? 'I'.'\u00a3~iE cm'\n\n ' AS12512 t';i_\u20ac_)i\u00a7f?'\u00a3', 8AN{'iu%L\u20ac)RE.\n\nV __   'W\ufb01i pc\ufb01tian samizxg on far hearing this day, the\nT -.\u00a7C:,it;:'ur't made the fei1c:2Wir;g:--\n\n<1<;\/Q_r-\u00ab~---\n\n\n\n \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Being aggrieved by the order dated 17′.12.20()’? passed__ ‘{3};
\nthe V Add}. City Civi} Judge, Bangalore an
\nO.S,N0.:”5019\/C37′, the pzainnf\ufb01’ has preferred this writ–‘j\u00a7\u00e9fi:i{;: 1ni.;:”‘   *<\/p>\n
2. Tbs plam\ufb01\ufb02 filed a suit sec1{it1g:1’f<jf'T\u00e91 <\u00a3iT\u00bb1:a'\u00a7,v*A\u00a7:':\ufb01f311:VV<\/p>\n
\ufb01I'St defendant to perform his abiigfiiign \ufb01\ufb01d\u00a2rVth\u00e9\u00a7 }\u00a7\u00a7s_\u00a7:ignEie:1t. * L'<\/p>\n
Agreament dated 2.2.2208?' andvAV…f;\u00a7:*v._\u00a7a;'m\u00e9\u00a31\u00e9nt_ip\ufb01unc\ufb01en
\nrcstraimng the \u00e9efendants  :\u00bb\u00ab5t\u00a7%3,<: rights of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff unr;i:::"-?\u00a7',?1:*.:'\u00ab'i'\u20ac;:*r=.r;t\u00a7;;icr censtzquentiai miiefs'<\/p>\n
3. f.:\u00e9;.\u00e9’E  Qrdeatr 39 Rules 1 and 2 eff CFC
\nseeking _f\u20ac:::r  ser\u00e9er of temparazy I\u00a5.i’1j13I’iCtiO}I1\n<\/p>\n
 5.._'”{3f1\u20ac'”~ A.def\u20aciid’f3;:’1’t’s from broadcastilzg tha kannada<\/p>\n
mgbvi\u00e9 V’S’\u00e91’mVih;aa’A <:'i4:\u20ac:A._ "\n<\/p>\n
4, ~  trial Court ardered summons an the suit as W311
\n \u00a7s2 \u00a3-‘:1:VcV I’}’;’?_L\u00ab\u00a7. Eeing aggrisved by the 1′:0:1-c6n3’Kie:*ation cf Esau-D}?
\n  \ufb01iain\ufb01\ufb01” pX’\u20acfE:I”\u00a3’\u20ac{.”\u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7f.\u00a5’.N@. 1851:’?\/Q’? ivilsrein tha isratned<\/p>\n
  ‘\u00e9i\u00e9ingie Ju\u00e9ge by his ands: dated m.’?.2GG’? \u00e9aciined :9 imtarfezm<\/p>\n
06;,\/’<\/p>\n
but hawever obs\ufb01trved, that the trial \u00e9fimirt.\n<\/p>\n
agprcapriate orders immediately afzer service of 11<::\ufb01<::\u20ac .'  ~<\/p>\n
of notice, the \ufb01rs: defendant filed LA.-\u00a7\u00a3 _u.\/.s_._ 43 e:;':1?:e"\u00a7\u00e9$;.:i\u00a7ii\u00a7ra{::;,;;:;.,_ <\/p>\n
and Rezconci\ufb01atieix Act, 1996 seeking :'e:f\u20ac&re;=\u00a7iC\u20ac'iV0fTTt"i1\u20ac~  flax:\n<\/p>\n
an Arbitrator. Tbs trig} Court h3\u00ab*\u00bbTVt1\ufb01;::..im;Q\u00a7i1gVi1c\u00a31  {‘6 <\/p>\n
the C{}IiCh1S\u00a7\u20ac3}f}. that cerxsi\u00e9cyation for  woui\ufb01
\narisa $131}? after the   the matter to
\narbimation in terms. Qf \u00a7.:\u00a7;.+–i:.F._. ma} Court
\n\u00a7roc@\u00a2=:d.ed 12:3   order, LA.-4! was
\naliewad and “tkigeiv    Ii\u00e9turn\ufb01d it} the plainti\ufb01
\nfor i3I”\u20ac\u00a33t’i\u00a3l’E’:\u00a7ti\u20ac3_fI3:,A 1_’  Hence, the prasezxt<\/p>\n
Writ Petitionf  4′<\/p>\n
‘~   xl?da3?L\u00e9;:}Vi’\u00a731ii%a, lcarneii Semis: Counsai appeaxixig<\/p>\n
oft; :Vi&\u00a5:%\u00a2’4\ufb01i\u00a7t\u00a5\u00a7f:i.cners cmlnsai contends mat the iris}; {hurt
\n =\u00bb.3c;,as \u00a7\u00a70:;%m.i\u00a7%c+:i;: emor in gassing the impugned order mad
\n~ jV~-V’\u00a71dgr5::1c:e iiii\ufb01ifg\u00e9\u00e9nce is Cailed fer. Ha submiis that the er\u00e9zzr \ufb02f tbs
\n  {‘\u00a7%i\u00a7:*{ is err<:z11e::m$ in as: much as {h\ufb01 sccon\u00e9 defandani is
\n4,  %5'J:V\u20ac:I'\u20acd aiimmtian an\u00e9 \ufb01ance I16 azzbitzatiim vsmuid 1315 near<\/p>\n
  czx\ufb01er Qi' an arbitrate: coui\u00e9 be enfom\ufb01abie against him. By<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
placi\ufb02g rezliance on the Deed sf Assignmsnt, he <:ani;cnd$___t}1at<\/p>\n
afbitratien would be availabi\ufb01 is such persons Wh\ufb02  <\/p>\n
:0 the original agreement and 1101: ms any 'third person;  .\n<\/p>\n
conten\u00e9s that if the trial Cczsuxrt. was Qf M1;1_1e   “‘ ‘V<\/p>\n
matter is to be refbrred is arbitI=ation,V’\u00bb.:4th\u00a7”‘C;:\u00a7uf’t._Vsl\u00a7\u20ac:’:”\ufb02?;iV:?t::aV:;\n<\/p>\n
consi\u00e9ermti i.A.~I as an appiicafioni  S. a:;=_f :hc 32rf’b ‘i\u00a7;*\u00e94.\u00a7;Qn_:’\u00a7A\u00a2i <\/p>\n
anti tlmr\ufb01after shank}. passed the  9%tiac:;’Yfhef\u00a3;fo:’\u20ac, he
\ncaxitends that {ha same  \ufb01at i.1\u00a3:::V:L’\u00e9c:}r;:_’.(;i1’\u00e9i::<1e, th\ufb01 \u00e9mpugxied
\nenier is bad in iaw  calls A,'fQf:7.i\u00a73.\u00a7f:.i%f\u20aciE\u20acI1f:B,.' V 1 <\/p>\n
6'  I1; I:-;i{' .._a;0n't_eI1tj011, he relisd upen me
\n\u00e9iacision gepgrtsa if,'AI3~*::._:""<:2aQ4 MAQRAS 344 (ms,<\/p>\n
M?sNG}'i.;=%.\u00a73.%MM\u00a7  ENVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. -VS~.\n<\/p>\n
I-T’;.,\u00a71′;”::;,AA’\u00a713:~;;:\u00e9;’A 1~:s’_’ir..’:’B:_(s 1′;*i*\ufb01. mm GTHERS); AER 2903 SC 2252<\/p>\n
($E;%.\u00a7{g:,;1~1.*\u00a7*A:\u00a7}:\u00bbs;\u00a7L\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7:\u00a7:{:<sss W2: 59:). \u00bb\u00bb-"%.?S~, JAYESE-E :55 Fskf\u00e9\ufb01-YA<\/p>\n
 "'=–*.aM~: \u00a7*;?\u00a7E'{}'\u00a5'HE1'R}:E;.'Ti2G$6} 3 s<::<:: 4:9 {SAEVEEZER BMAR A\u00a7%"~fD<\/p>\n
4’mE::%s \u00bb::::s?;. RATAE BHUSHM Jam AND GTHERS}; (2004) 6<\/p>\n
  \u00a7%\u00a7\u00a7’j::>. 339323 –v3–. SE\u00a7GI’*%BRILf:r %\u00a7AEBU)x<\/p>\n
q\ufb01,\u00bb<\/p>\n
?. On the other hand Sri Haiaswamy, 1ea1*11m”..,&
\ndefendant bsing an assignee steggs
\ndefendant and hence the 211″ d\u20acf\u20acIgdi3\u00a7’:\u00a7i’i.’-‘\ufb01g dA\u00a7.\u20ac\u00e9m\u00a2(}–.\ufb01jv_:b\u00e9*–;g6v\u20ac:\u00a7;1ed ”
\nby arb’itration 3150″ He ther;%1″0.;’\u20ac C\u20ac’li’i’E{=;V\u00a3.3V\u00a5;.’i:=:’VVt3*’:.\u00ab’_:3ft, $115 23\u00a2 d\u00e9tfcndalit
\nis next a stranger to the   stepped mtg
\nSI10\u20acS of the 1st de\ufb01tiitftant gay tile orders in
\narbitration. in   relied upan the
\ndecisiorgg rC[30tf3″:\u00a2iif\u00a3\u00a7:V’.’     .~ESC; 2182 (OLYMPUS
\n IVIEENA WJAY KI-EETAN
\nAND 0’*I’1+iE,-$28)”; 431 (DE) {SJKLVIJAYAKUMAR<\/p>\n
__;vfs~   RAViKU}%’\u00a7A:If\u00a7_ mi) <m~\u00a7\u00a7;Rsf; ANB AER 209? (me;\n<\/p>\n
A’1;:;:,**rfV'{z2g;&;i._)V {$3A\u00a7\u00a71:?:i11i-“‘1.~:f:{$<;\u00bb%I\\,%'\u00a71s':.' \u00ab\u00a7\u00a7'?s:i:E;i\u00a7:\u00a7~i"A*r:0':~:AL LTE1<\/p>\n
V' 'A   Poavayya, isarned ceunsei appaazing for the End
\n rg:s\u00a7.x.:\u00a5i:':i\u00e9:1t contends that the 'Em d&fem:ia\u00a7.1: having aztquire\u00e9
\nT . _ c70'2;1\u00a5:1*a(:1:"\u00a31a1 rights, me Gifi\ufb01f Sheul\u00e9 be yasseci by \u00a3it11e:* 0f \u00a3116<\/p>\n
fbmms withsut giving 3 r\u20ac:a$o:1a'b16 cppa\ufb01u\ufb01itg ta make 231;: his<\/p>\n
aim'<\/p>\n
case. He: placed 1'\u20ac1i8_I1C\u20ac on documents to support his .,
\nssaici property.\n<\/p>\n
8g (33 haaring all counsels,   [$%ir=_: \u00e9a. \ufb01gat<\/p>\n
impugned order Calls for ir1te:1\u00b0i”E:i\u00b0::I1{:i:__\ufb01*:31: the ViL’:~.1ie’ex?\u00a711’g iegson\u00e9z<\/p>\n
a) The triai Court L\u00a7;\u20ac3.\u00a3;:};~s:#\u00a3::”v%\u00a7\u00a31w\u00a7:eI;sid\u20ac1ing LA.-H,
\ncame to the concltll\ufb01-‘1\u00a712._   a mattttr
\narising out of    of the arhitratien
\nclause. ‘?he_.ca1.1$\u20ac’..v;._\u00a7f”   bifurcated benv\ufb01en {ha
\n1%’: anci  by placing reliance on the
\nagrriament {\u00a30   that the ?;\ufb025~ defendant is; also
\nv4.gQ\u00a7em&\u00e9.\u00a7:\u00ab:’:9\ufb01g the 8:f\u00a7if.1;ff&%M’:E\u00a3OI1’V:a3ia11S\u20ac and hence the 2″ dsfendant is<\/p>\n
gigs; habjle \u00a7\ufb01\u00e9:4,a;~\u00a7iaa\ufb01en.\n<\/p>\n
  of the trial (taint can this issue is srranaous<\/p>\n
_. ‘Aag\ufb01i \u00a7ia.b\u00a7\u00e9’tTne set aside, The H0:1’b1e Supreme Court eaf india in<\/p>\n
A  “:%\u00a7.:\u00a7_c:ag\u00a7”..*repmed in me 2093 SC 22252 gszjxareya \u00a7~iQLE’2iNGS
\n.  ‘j—-‘\u00a7%\u00a7f:\u00a7_’\u00a7LT:>. -\u00bb-vs”? JAYESH Rs PPsP\u20acI}YA ANS ANOTHER} ‘ms heid<\/p>\n
VA *~ as f0}10Ws:–\n<\/p>\n
<;\\\/34.\u00bb<\/p>\n
"I 6. The next question which requireg 7
\nconsideration is – even  there is no provi\ufb01ion
\npartfy referring the dispute in arbitratiorg whe;':f:er..' 5 _.__
\nsuch a, caurse is pet\u00e9ssible under Section. 8 9f ifw[!\u00a7ct?.TV " "\n<\/p>\n
In car view, it waufe\ufb01 be d\ufb02j\ufb01mli is __.r;ri::;e_”‘V\u00bb.x;1.r:.. ‘
\ninterpretation to Sectien 8 under w?<:ieI:,– \ufb01f VV  V
\nthe cause of acticm {hat is to say :\u00a3he s;ubjet;'; inaii\u00e9r H
\ncf the suit or in some cases b1fuf(x1ti\u00bb:}n'of t'?:?e"3u\u00a3i\u00ab ~   TA
\nbeiween pcerzies who are pcriies tcb'pzhz:3 ar\ufb01i\ufb01aii\u00e9rz'
\nagreement and others \u00a33 pus_S'\u00e9bfe. This V2z_:::}uV3d"\u00ab\u00bb._l7eV
\nlaying down 6% tataliy  pro<:Sezr2zi:'Te rig:\n<\/p>\n
ooniemplaied under the Aci,.—-.{f\u00b0’biji.:rm\u00a3iofz gf \u00a3169
\nsubject matter of at  was’ m;:1,i\u00e92npiated,” the
\nEegtisiature would have “award appr\u00e9izgafiairg Eanguage is
\npermit such. (1 course’  uri\u00e9 :\u00a3h\u20acrre wi.{S. $19 such
\nz’ndioation in  Iqngnzdge,” .ii\u00a7fti’I\u00a5.Q”:Lss tizaz” \u00a7:ai:furoa,Ii9n<\/p>\n
of the subject :?’;::1;:’ier “rgrf an~*’VaC2io\ufb01–..E2rp;;g’hi before a
\njudicial a.2_,:\u20ac5’z\u20ac2~tfi\u00a33;,i_1f:_”~;’.m:;1:_a_li\u00a7};z2ed. 1;’ . V<\/p>\n
 13?’, _Sec74~;jn_diy, sm,:C}1V bgzfzircaiien of suit in $190
\npa.ris;”-one 250 be  fia\u00e9e ar\ufb01izraf trihunai anti
\nother is-_ be ‘t:ie\u00a2id\u00a7’ed4″..\u00a21gj.i;=”‘ihe citsii Cow”: woufd<\/p>\n
irzeviiabiy\ufb01efag thep\ufb01:-.\u00a2e’edings. ‘I’he wi\/zoie purpose<\/p>\n
af gspeedy Vc2i.$pt;s’af cf dispufe and degzreasirzg the
\n <jfa}s3:: pf lizig<i\u00a3'i::.n_____wau\u00a7d be fmstraied by surf;
\n . Vp'\u00a7"m3ei:"$i:r\u00e9; It we-ufd \ufb01ziso :'m.:r*ease the cast \u20ac}ff2'1'igG,fi0?'\u00a3.\n<\/p>\n
‘   –.ELa:rc:3$’m_en\u00a3 to the parties and on occasiorts
\n.g\u00a72eire. ‘i.$”p<:\u00ab$$1iZ9iEity 0f mn\ufb02icting judgments and<\/p>\n
" Aarders 'by  dxffereni fanuns; "\n<\/p>\n
 A }ie1:ie:;cf_; 3 by ag\u00e9pkying the Sai\u00e9. _\u00a7udgmeni, i’m sf ihzie
\n ‘\u00bb:{0I\u00a7\ufb01si:1\u00a2 \u00a7ii;$ View ‘\u00a31113′: 1:316: cause ef ac\ufb01on, which coui\ufb01 as’: he
\n  the 2″ \u00e9efcndant b\u00e9ing net Bahia fer arbitraiiomg the<\/p>\n
 ‘~.. \u00a7:n91zgne::i o;*\u00bb:isr iiii\ufb01ffti\ufb02g ratmn of tbs yiaint to be presents\u00e9<\/p>\n
<23",<\/p>\n
ii)<\/p>\n
The decision reiied upon by the 183111661 Counsel appt:a.ri,11g
\nfor the 1%’ defendant is misplaced in View cf the fact that no
\nquesticsn has been rais\ufb01d xvii}: mgard to the competzzncy “the
\nArbitrater ta’; \u00e9acide the W prayer. It is n\u00a7I’3’\u00a3iOi’}:’~*;)}C:”1:.;\u00a3T’){‘\u00a7’ <\/p>\n
.I”f31i8I1CE placed umiier ths said jBdgii\u00a7\u00a5f’::f1?:%7Oi;11i\u00a7:\n<\/p>\n
\u20ac29 ‘Fhe trig} \u20ac3mu*t Wiiii\u00e9  canciusion f\u00e9hat<\/p>\n
it has I10  ihsrefore, the fpiaint be
\nstai\ufb01eraci to ‘E5 Ej\u00a3’\ufb01i”\u00a7\u00a7.I1}’\u20acEi 3L%i;.A7L.%1g\u20ac5’ far prasentatiazz beferr: ‘aha
\nfssrsriim.   t\ufb01\ufb01 \u00a7r5i%1’aiaI.*, has failsii \u00a38 cc3:1$i\u00e9\u20acz: the<\/p>\n
 E”<:\u00a7\u00a7:' \u20ac32: \u00a7.A.-i \u00a322311 iheugh the Cjgmlrt. came
\ntoli \ufb01il\ufb01 SCG}}("3 sf }iTig83ZiOI1 is b\u20ac\u00a7\u00bb*0\ufb01.e:i that sf
\n  "\u00a7h\u00a7   3h{3u};d have \ufb01irecied itself ink: cgnsidez\u00e9ng
\n fer i..\u00a7.2;\u00a7\u00e9\u00a311\u20acZ\u00a7\u00a7G\u00a7i even while retaining the piaimt, \u00a7'3'aj},ure af
\n  ":0 ccnsicigr E1316 i.\u00a3;.\u00ab~E 110% withstamiixzg \ufb02ax erdem<\/p>\n
 "–;\u00a7a3s\u00e9& <33: E555;-if is ffi\ufb01f\ufb01f\ufb02if unguaiaixxabis.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 Author: Ravi Malimath EN THEE 2-31%: COURT’ (>13 KARNaTAKA, BgNGALQ;R :\u00e9:;” DATED was THE 31% DAY’ 01:’ JULY 2002:: V ” BEFQRE THE H(}N’BLE MR. JUS’FI{‘;E R}w1:1\u00a7\u00a74AL1M;xffE-E way. No. 224212\u00aeS”~s\u00a7M\u00a7\u00e9?Ci BE’Z”WEEN:~ % M13. ZEE mawss LIMITED, “A __ ,. HAVTNG ITS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1528,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\",\"name\":\"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009"},"wordCount":1528,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009","name":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T09:09:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-zee-news-limited-vs-company-enterprises-on-3-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Zee News Limited vs Company Enterprises on 3 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}