Times Now vs Republic TV: Delhi HC to see if employment contract was violated

4772
Republic TV

The Times NowRepublic TV battle has heated up into an Intellectual Property debate, on whether former employees of Times Now are using material that they aren’t supposed to.

At the Delhi High Court, Justice Manmohan is hearing a writ filed by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., the holding company of Times Now, against Republic TV, alleging that a former employee had taken some sensitive information which amounts to infringement and is against the employment contract.

“Former employee” refers to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami. In the last hearing, the single bench had issued a short notice and asked the plaintiff’s counsel why it did not send the defendant any notice prior to moving the court.

On May 26, the court said that while it was not putting any gag order, neither party is allowed to publish anything about the court proceedings except with a written order while the court is hearing the case.

On May 26, arguments started with the caveat that was filed by the respondents. Sandeep Sethi (for Republic TV) said that they didn’t get the notice “even when we filed the caveat, I don’t know how they have persuaded the registry.”

Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Times Now, strongly objected to the persuasion part of Sethi’s argument.

Parag Tripathi, appearing for Arnab Goswami, said that in the opposition’s petition they have mentioned that when the first video related to the Lalu Prasad Yadav-Shahabuddin chat was aired on Republic TV, they got to know that, as per their reasonable belief, it was their intellectual property. Tripathi said that actually what has happened is that along with Goswami, one Prakash Singh has also joined Republic TV from Times Now. “The tape in question was got through a source who is an independent journalist. Hence no infringement has been carried out by us. We will give it on affidavit in court.”

Sandeep Sethi said: “According to provisions of the Commercial Contract Act, when the matter is in court, the plaintiff needs to put all the records and supporting documents in front of the court at the very beginning. Later on they cannot put more documents that they have already withheld. Now in this case, they have affirmed that they have put all the records, but none of the records show that the Sunanda Pushkar tape was on their database.

“The actual issue is that earlier Times Now had the highest TRP, but now after Republic TV has been launched their TRP has gone down and therefore these kinds of proceedings are being instituted against our client,” Sethi said.

Justice Manmohan said: “Clause 4 of the employment contract signed by the respondent talks about disclosure of the work done by the organization. Tripathi and Sethi, please record that you have not violated the clause 4 of the contract and have no intention to do so. Both of the respondent’s counsel agrees to it and the statement is recorded.”

The order that followed was that the respondents will have to file a written statement in seven weeks. In the meantime, neither party is allowed to publish anything with respect to the court proceedings except the written order.

The order also read: “The counsels for the respondents have voluntarily stated that they are not in violation of clause 4 of the employment contract and have no intention of doing so in future. The matter will be listed in JR’s Court on July 27 and in court on August 31.

Justice Manmohan categorically clarified that he is not going to give any gag order and the matter will be limited to Clause 4 of the employment contract to see whether it was violated or not.

—India Legal Bureau