Order Sheet
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI
High Court Appeal No.386 of 2018
|
Date
|
Order with signature of Judge |
Fresh Case :
1. For orders
on CMA No.3213/2018 (U/A) :
2. For orders
on CMA No.3214/2018 (E/A) :
3. For orders
on office objection a/w reply as at “A” :
4. For orders
on CMA No.3215/2018 (Stay) :
5. For
hearing of Main Case :
08.11.2018 : Mr. Abid S. Zuberi along with Mr. Ayan
Mustafa Memon,
advocates for the appellants.
…………
1. Urgency
granted.
2. Exemption
is granted subject to all just exceptions.
3 to 5. The present appeal has been filed against order dated
07.11.2018 passed by a learned single Judge in Suit No.2092/2018 filed by the
present appellants against the present respondents for declaration and
mandatory and permanent injunction. Injunction application bearing CMA
No.15773/2018 filed by the appellants in their above mentioned Suit was fixed
for orders before the learned single Judge when notice to the defendants /
respondents was ordered without passing any ad-interim order thereon.
Addressing the office objection regarding maintainability of this appeal
against the above order, learned counsel has contended that under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, every order, even if it is an order for issuance of
notice, is appealable, and also that non-grant of ad-interim injunction amounts
to an adverse order. In support of his above contention, he has relied upon an
order passed on 29.10.2014 by a learned Division Bench of this Court in High
Court Appeal No.274/2014, which was disposed of on the very first date of
hearing, without notice to the respondents therein, by passing an ad-interim
order till the date on which the Suit was fixed before the learned single Judge,
by observing that the question of extension of such ad-interim order will be
decided by the learned single Judge on the said next date. Perusal of the
aforesaid order shows that the same was passed in view of extreme urgency and
serious apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellant in the said appeal. In
view of the above, the office objection is overruled.
It
is contended that in the year 2014 respondent No.1 / Pakistan Cricket Board
(PCB) invited bids from the public for acquisition of management rights,
television broadcasting and other media rights, sponsorship rights, team
franchise rights, ticket sale rights and merchandizing rights for ‘Pakistan
Super League’ (PSL) ; appellant No.1 participated in the above process whereafter
his bid was successfully accepted by PCB and subsequently PCB entered into a
Franchise Agreement (page 235) with him on 08.12.2015 ; under the terms and
conditions of the Franchise Agreement and the bid documents, which were part
and parcel of the said Agreement, team franchise rights for PSL were granted to
appellant No.1 for a period of ten (10) years from 2016 to 2025 ; PSL was to be
played utilizing a city based team franchise structure involving five (05)
teams from Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar and Quetta ; the franchisee /
appellant No.1 was entitled to name his team by adding suffix to the city name
and was also entitled to sponsorship or branding and to sell merchandise, etc.
; the Franchise Agreement between the parties was in respect of the team as defined
in clause 1 of the Agreement as “Team shall mean the Karachi team comprising
of players representing the franchise in any match of the PSL” ; appellant No.1 applied for the
suffix ‘Kings’ for his team for the city of Karachi which was approved by PCB ;
in consideration of acquiring franchise rights in respect of his Karachi team,
appellant No.1 paid the agreed consideration as per the Agreement to respondent
No.1 ; after completion of all necessary formalities, appellant No.2 was
incorporated ; and, at present all the franchise rights are owned and enjoyed
by both the appellants. It is further contended that the appellants were
constrained to file the above Suit as respondents 1 and 2 launched second
edition of T10 Cricket League scheduled to be held between 21.11.2018 to 02.12.2018
wherein several teams having Pakistani origin names intend to participate without
any NOC / approval from respondent No.8 / PCB, and the name of one of such teams
is ‘Karachians’. It is the case of the appellants that respondents 1 and 2 are
deliberately using the name of Karachi in order to mislead the general public
and cricket lovers and due to such malafide act on their part, the valuable
vested rights and interest of the appellants in the Franchise Agreement and their
team ‘Karachi Kings’ have been seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel has drawn
our attention to PCB’s letter dated 23.10.2018 (page 357) addressed to appellant
No.1 categorically stating that PCB has never been approached by and has never
authorized the T10 League to use the team / franchise names ‘Karachians’ etc.,
and no person / entity / association is authorized to use the PCB’s logo /
trademarks and those of the PSL franchise teams without the permission /
authorization of PCB.
We are conscious of the fact that
the questions raised before us are subjudice before the learned single Judge,
particularly the injunction application filed by the appellants, and any
observation in relation thereto in the present proceedings will prejudice the
case of either of the parties. Since the main concern of the appellants is that
respondents 1 and 2 are actively and vigorously carrying on their advertising
and other campaigns in Karachi / Pakistan in respect of their team ‘Karachians’
and till the next date of hearing in the Suit, which is fixed on 15.11.2018
before the learned single Judge, not only the appellants shall suffer
irreparable loss, but the general public will also be misled, we are of the
view that no prejudice will be caused to any of the respondents if an ad-interim
order is passed till the next date of hearing in the Suit. Accordingly, ad-interim
order in terms of the prayer made in CMA No.3215/2018 shall operate till
15.11.2018 whereafter the learned single Judge will be at liberty to decide
whether the said ad-interim order should be extended or not. Let notice be
issued to the respondents for compliance.
The appeal and listed applications
stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. It is clarified
that this order may not be treated as a precedent in future.
J U D G E
J U D G E
*HCA 144-18/08.11.2018/Short Orders DB/Court
Work/E*