| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 1231 1997 SLD 1231 = 1997 PLD 57 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 14 of 1996, decided on 22nd August, 1996.
Presented By: Before Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, J
Arshad Tayebally alongwith M. Shahid for Plaintiff. Ghulam Abbas Pishori for Defendant No. 1. Munawwar Ghani for Defendant No.2.
Suit No. 14 of 1996, decided on 22nd August, 1996.
Presented By: Before Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, J
Arshad Tayebally alongwith M. Shahid for Plaintiff. Ghulam Abbas Pishori for Defendant No. 1. Munawwar Ghani for Defendant No.2.
MS. ATIQA ODHO---Plaintiff
VERSUS
R.LINTAS (PVT.) LTD. and another--_Defendants
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 54
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 73
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 54---"Property" as used in S.54, Specific Relief Act, 1877-- Connotation---Term "property" used in S.54, Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not limited to movable or immovable properties but would include several kinds of creation including intellectual property---Contract between plaintiff, a model, and defendants whereby defendants were entitled to use plaintiff's photographs for advertising product "Lux" in all forms of advertisement---Term 'property' used in terms of agreement would refer to all advertising materials produced and created by defendants---Agreement in question, however, did not suggest that defendants would be entitled to use photographs or `l . V. images of plaintiff for indefinite period---Perpetual injunction, could, thus be granted even in matters of violation of contract, breach of trust, infringement of copyright, patent, trade mark, easement, nuisance - -Penn "property" therefore, should not be restricted so as to frustrate spirit of S.54, Specific Relief Act, 1877. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----(. 54---Perpetual injunction---Injurious falsehood and false statement-- Injurious falsehood entitling grant of prohibitory injunction ---Essentials-- Plaintiff must prove presence of false statement about plaintiff or his property; such statement must be calculated to cause damage to plaintiff; such .statement in question, must have been made in public or within hearing of third party; such statement was made maliciously by defendant; and plaintiff must have suffered damage on account of statement made by defendant. Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 73---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2---Benefit arising out of contract ---Interpretation-- Entitlement to grant of interim injunction---Contract involving livelihood of any of the party must be read with caution and care---Any benefit arising out of such contract must be interpreted in favour of that party whose livelihood was based on such contract--- Exclusive right to use plaintiff's photograph and T.V. images for advertising…