4. WHETHER MR.

RAIHAN IS ENTITLED FOR THE RELIEF OF INTERIM

INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RELEASE OF THE PART-4 OF THE DOCU-
SERIES TITLES “DISGRACED LORDS” PENDING THE FINAL ADJUDICATION
5 OF THE SUIT.

Interim injunction comes under the ambit of Civil Procedure Code,1882 under Order 39.
The rationale behind the provision of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurudas and Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan
10 and Ors.– AIR 2006 SC 3275, as "While considering an application for injunction, the
Court would pass an order thereupon having regard to prima facie, balance of
convenience and irreparable injury".

A. PRIMA FACIE - The respondent’s allegations and averments against the petitioner
15 doesn’t hold a plausible ground and lack the merits to prove the same.(Gujarat Bottling
Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Co.AIR 1995 SC 2372) The director of the docu-series Mr.Goh
is being falsely accused of misrepresentation and right to privacy.

1. Mr.Goh’s intention and his words conveyed through mails repeatedly stated that the
20 primary objective of the docu-series is to show the human-side of the biggest superstars
meaning the true life away from the spotlight and how he has inspired an entire
generation of the people. These mails can be used as an evidence to prove the true
intention of the director regarding the documentary. Mr.Goh being a director who is
globally renowned for receiving two Oscars for his work was very professional enough to
25 get the consent of Mr.Raihan before producing the docu-series which was comprehensive
and it was obtained as a matter of abundant precaution.

2. The right to privacy cannot be even made as an allegation since Mr.Raihan agreed to
showcase his real life. Revealing one’s life to the pubic with consent cannot be termed as
30 invasion of an individual’s privacy. Moreover a public figure’s lifestyle and choices are
closely watched by the public which also includes gossips and other speculations that
may or may not be true.
 3. Even the dialogues used in the trailer of the docu-series, if closely noticed conveyed
the part where he is being appreciated for his achievements in sports by his coach and
also the allegations and speculations said by their fellow team-mates to the press. But
5 there was not even a single part in which his name was used nor his allegations was
upholded as a truth by making a clear-cut statement. Rather they were just mere questions
being raised and speculations were being used that was available in the public forum for a
marketing purpose of the docu-series and not to defame Mr.Raihan.

10 4. Mr. Goh executed an undertaking cum consent term on 15-02-2020 consenting to

Contentopera.inc for producing the documentary on Mr.Raihan. Even if the act holds
good in the eyes of law, the content of the documentary doesn’t fall under the category
“Prohibited Content” of The Online Content Regulation Act,2020 (Annexure-1). Because
in the said Act, Section 3(d) mentions the word “individual’s consent”, which clearly
15 points to the fact that no content was used without the consent of the party.

B. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE

1. The second factor considered by the courts to grant interim injunction is the balance of
comparative loss caused to the applicant and the respondent in the case of not passing the
order(Dalpat Kumar V/s Pralhad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276). The balance of
20 convenience falls towards the petitioner (contentopera) as the amount of investment spent
for the docu-series is very high and granting of interim injunction will cause a huge loss
to the company and its producers. As explained before the rights of the respondent has
not been violated in any manner and not granting the interim injunction will not affect
him anyway. If the injunction is granted there will be serious financial loss to so many
25 people who have worked really hard to create the docu-series and especially the
livelihood of the director will get affected. When we weigh these factors of loss, the
petitioner is the one who will be seriously affected.

30
 C. IRREPARABLE LOSS

1. In Best Sellers Retail India (P) Ltd. Case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
prima facie case alone is not sufficient to grant injunction and held that:

5 “Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of
the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the
plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable.”

In the present case there has already been speculations and allegations flying around
about his part in the match fixing. But the director wanted to show the real life incidents
10 and not in any way prove the allegations kept against him. The trailer rather questioned
those allegations and tried to bring in viewers to know more about the cricketer himself.
The interview that the director planned with the cricketer is to show it in the series and
help him inspire people.

15 2. In addition to all the above mentioned factors, temporary injunction being an equitable
relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's
conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands. (Seema
Arshad Zaheer (2006) 5 SCC 282) . We can see in this case that there was an
investigation conducted against Mr.Raihan and the conclusion of the investigation soon
20 changed into a trial which is still underway.