TN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY SRN Se JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTIONNO, 1777. OF 2015, aN uw) SUIT\NO. 680 OF 2015 Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai & Anr. Applicants (rig. Plaintiffs) INTHE MATTER BETWEEN: Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai & Anr. =» Plaintiffs Versus Music Broadcast Private Limited «Defendants THE DEFENDANTS ABOVENAMED, 1, Ashish Shah, the authorized signatory of the Defendant No, 1 having office adkress at 3th Floor, RNA Comporste Park, Off. Westem Express Highway, KalaNagar, Bendra (Rest), Mumbai — 400051. do hereby solomnly state and affirm as under:= 1. I say that I'am the Vice President (Finance) of the Defendant No. 1 Company. | sm filly aware of the facts and cireumstonces of the case and ‘em competent, authorized and able to depose the same. The name of the Defendant No. 1 has changed to Music Broadcast Ltd. with effect fom 2562015, 1em fi ig this Affidavit on behalf of all the Defendants.@ “lt gross and blatant abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Cour filed with malafide intensions which is designed to meet certain oblique ulterior \Ox o motives which is best known to the Plaintiffs themselves. ce 3. Ley that the present suit daserves to be dismissed at the threshold, inter alia, for the following reasons:~ a, The Defendants have never cast any aspersions or doubts on the peisonel credibility or integrity of the Plaintiff No. 1 nor was it ever their intention to do so. In fact the point of discussion between Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the program was Lalit Modi interlinked ‘with the Ingian Premiere League Lnicket ‘Tournament (IPL) Scam and not the Plaintiff’ No, 1. The Defendant Nes. 2 and 3 were only trying to bring about some humour in the discussion, as is clearly evident from the tranetipt ofthe said program Which is ennexed hereto and Exsut marked Exhibit. directed towards the Plaintiff No. 1 nor was there any direct ‘or Neither was the comment indirect aspersion cast upon him, The said statement ean by no stretch Of imagination be considered defamatory of the Flaintitt No.l and Plaintiff No.2 or affecting their esteem, reputation and goodwill. ¢. The Defendants have immediately informed the Plaintiffs that they will not re-broadcast the said statement and have in fact refrained from further coverage of the same. The Defendants also made a statement to thet effect, wli\ch was recorded on the very first date WWf - To put it at the least, for a person such as the Plaintiff No.1 2) When the matter appeared in court. The statement complained of by the Plaintiffs is ephemeral and short lived or brief. It is not a statement which any person will even give a second thought to, It was only one stray sentence, which the Plsintiffs have taken out af context. ' ote regarding What was being broadcast. The discussion was [impromptu between There was{no preconceived script or any prior deliberation| the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, It is beyond any comprehension that any common man of ordinary prudence would construc the statement in @ manner to draw an adverse opinion about the Plaintiffs’ reputation, esteem or good will, wi A ae ar[FM Channel and not a o#> news channel, any person of ordinary intelligence will not consider Further, considering that the said program i ‘any statement made on the program as being the gospel truth. > guest That the Plaintiff No. 1 is being over sensitive in the present case is oa clear from the fact that there ate several websites where direct inet allegations are made egainst him and against which he has not taken wee any legal action. The Defendants crave leave to refer to and rely upon anseripts of various news items or printouts fiom various websites when produced, The Plaintiff have selectively chosen to prosecute ra the Defendants herein for a statement made in jest, himself airs his views, many of which are extremely controversial, live and pre-recorded to the public at large, it would be totally farfetched to come to this Hon'ble Court and make believe a story to@ say that the defamatory sentence as alleged is actually and really defamatory to the Plaintiff Nos.1 and Plaintiff'No2. The present suit espouses the hyper/ undue sensitivity of the Plaintiff No. 1 and is Nothing but a means to cushion the ego of the Plaintiffs. 1, Furthermore, it is well known and well settled that the Courts will not look intfiv ruater|ard the present case being a fit case where the court ought noi to look into frivolous matters and waste the precious time of the judiciary. ‘The defendants do not indulge in imparting aay news to the public at large. is } The plaintiffs have uui even shown how the alleged defamatory article has caused any los; arm, damage, injury o them) ‘The alleged defamatory article has not been reproduced directly or indirectly in any mode or manner howsoever and much less has it caused any further reproduction exe, by any other persons based on the alleged her efamatory aticle. ‘The fact thet there has bee ne far related publication pertaining to the alleged defamatory article itself shows thet it was a statement in jest and was not taken seriously by ‘any persons who may have heard the alleged defamatory article In cases offslanderlalleged by the Plaintiff, no cction lies when there is | ce govell no direct or plausible loss occasioned due tothe defamatory article. Ip fact no action lies in cases of special damages. | frente ig to the suit itself is sufficient to show that the Plaintifis cause of action has never arisen. ‘The Defendants bytheir letter dated 25" June, 2015, 10 show their good intention and bonafides, but without prejudice to their rights, rested the apprchension of the Plaintiffs by confirming that they will not republish any material relating to the alleged defamatory article, Furthermore, the Order dated 8* July 2015 passed by his Lordship Mr, Justice G. $. Patel has effectively confirmed the contents of the said letter dated 25" June 2015 addressed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. In view thereof there is no further cause that remains in a present matter, seve and except the imaginary claim for damages which the Plaintiffs cannot sustain, m, On a plain reading of the plaint, the same discloses no eause of action having accrued to the PlaintiffS and the plaint ought 10 be rejected on its demurrer. 4, Brief background of the Defendants: § ve a) Defendant No.1 : Owns ard operates an FM radio siation duly licensed by we Ministry of Information and Broedeasting (MIR) having presence in twenty es locations in India and is popularly known a5 “Radio City 91.1 FM". The Defendant No, | is not « news channel and does not broadeast any news, ‘The Defendant No, 1 is primarily in the field of entertainment. 6) Defendant No2: is a Radio Jockey, Voice over Artist, anchoring TY and Shows and a Singer. ®) Defendant No, 3 is « Radio Jockey, Voice over Artist with a TV Channel, Film Actor, Film Critic, anchoring TV and Shows and a businessmen, ww $. Brief Background of the show “KASA KAI MUMBAI” on which thei» AE ie ‘Defendant No. I's Radio Show called “KASA KAT MUMBAI" en which the alleged defamatory article was broadcast is a slice of life to brighten people's day by taking @ satirical and humorous approach to life. As the name suggests, Kesakel meaning “What's up”, itis « nesdy coucoction ‘of musie, sports, cinema and topical issues all put together to entertain the listener. It is Mumbai's alarm clock that wakes up the city and liven up the morning, from the time one gets up till they reach office/ work places. The entire program isjunscripted and is impromptu, |The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 ‘do not have any prevritten or preconc ed script. Furthermore, KASA KAL MUMBA is also a registered trademark of Defendant no 1, bearing TM no: 1366709 in class no 41 for Education; Providing Of Training, Entertainment; Sporting And Activities. The area in which the said show is broadcasted is within the tertitory of the city of Mumbai only. 6. I say that the public in Mumbai listens to the radio show. “Kasa Kai hearted, unintended, somewhat crazy/imaginary/wild/innocent jokes, comments and conversations, without any malice, The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are well known for their wit, humonr and impromptu funny comments and jokes, pi < Z we” 7. T submit that the statement complained of is not at all defamatory as is Yow \y evident from the following: = faves V ¥ light hearted banter between the two Radio Jockeys and cannot by eny a) The entire program must be considered as a whole and to comprehend the nature of the program. The programm ib) d) 9 | stretch of imay ination be considered to humiliate, ridicule or lower the esieem of the Plaintiffs or any other person. No part other than one ‘small sentence was directed towards the Plaintiff No. 1.1 crave leave to refer to and rely upon the recording of the said program when produced, ‘There is no doubt that the(entire program is full of witty and = statements made in jest. The Defendant Nes. 2 and 3 heve no malice or motive against the Plaintiffs. In fact the show is hosted w is hoste without any script or rehearsal, It is the pure|wit and teleat df the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 which is the backbone on which the said show runs. Upon listening to the part of the program from which the Plaintiffs have extracted a single statement, which they allege is defarnatory, it PlaintiffNo.1_ but it was Lalit Modi and a ‘Any person who listens to the said statement Reeping in mind the er font wich it was delivered would come to the conelusion that it wes made Rjest.| harmless statement made in jet, The statement, which the Plaintiffs allege, is defamatory was spoken merely for about (6 seconds and was ephemeral in nature hnd incapable of registering in to the minds of persons who may have heard the same, Moreover, it is inconceivable that the listeners of thesaid show would consider the alleged statement to be defamatory. g 8. NpAthout prejudice to the above, 1 shall now deal with the contents of the Plaine parewi (®) At the cutset, I deay each and averment contained in the Plaint end AfGidavit in Suppo of the Notize of Motion that is contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated hereinabove. (b) With reference to paragraph 1 of the Plaint, I am not aware of the Contents and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. I do not admit that the Plaintiff No.1 is @ well-known and @ reputed journalist who has mede « nname for himself. I deny that the Plaintiff No.1 is well recognized for his prufessivusl caliber and achievements not only in India but also intemationally. I deny that the Plaintiff No.1 ie one of the foremost medie organizations in the country with a long, illustrious and eminent history and the Plaintiffs are put to the strict proof thereof. Iam not aware of the constitution of the Plaintiff No, 2 or the association with its group compenies. |, therefore, do not admit and therefore deny the rest of the contents of the said paragraph. 1 deny that Doctor Puneet Jain has any authority to institute the present suit on behalf of both the Plaintiffs. I submait ‘hat the Plaint cannot be signed and filed on the strenath of a letter of authority. I submit that the Plaint has not been validly instituted and on that ‘ground itself the same deserves to be dismissed costs. (cl With reference to paragraph 2 of the Plaint, the contents thereof are substantially correct save and except that the Defendant no 2 and Defendent ho 3 are not the employees of Defendant no 1. They are Radio Jockeys ofKASA KAI MUMBAI and the relationship between Defendant tA a Sie one end and Defendant no 2 and Defendant no 3 at he other end is ‘that of Principal to Principal basis and not that of an employer and employee. (© With reference to paragraph 3 of the Plaint, in view of whatever is stated herein, [ deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as claimed and submit that the reliefs as sought by the PlaintiffS are wholly misconceived, untenable and ought to be rejected in limine by this court, (©) With reference to paragraph 4 of the Plaint, the same requires no comment. (© With reference to paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 of the Plaunt, | say that the Plaintiffs \hemselves have termed Lalit ito be a man 10. a] | Self otro ind who has been in the news in the recent past jn relation to allegations of mismanagement and corniption of the IPL The alleged statement was nothing but a satirical humour, Furthermore, it is highly inconceivable, unpalatable and untenable that the Plaintiffs or any persons of the public and or any other persons known to the public would construe the alleged statement as being a statement of fact and not a statement in jest__ As already stated hereinabove, the said statement ot in any sranne rested to the Plaintiff No,)Yand the Plaint has miserable failed to aver as to how the alleged defamatory statement is in fact defamatory. (2) With reference to paragraph 4.3 of the Plaint, I deny that on the said radio show eny comments, in plain and unambiguous terms, were made about the conduct of the Plaintiff No. 1 as alleged. As stated above, the&® of the discussion was Lalit Modi in relation to the IPL scam and not Fs are being (ayper sensitive) and are taking fe siray sentence totally out of the context and imputing certain mesning to =} laintif No. 1. The Pl the same when none exists nor was any intended or so imputed. It is denied as false that the Defendant Nos. 2 stated that Lalit Modi had bome all the expenses of the Plaintiff No. 1 of travel, lodging and boarding in order to give the Plaintiff No. 1 his version of the exclusive interview, as alleged. ‘The Pleintiffs are putting words in the mouth of the Defendant No. 2 when none existed. It is denied that the laughter of Defendant No.3 was meant wb be his approval to the correctness of the statements of Defendant No. 2 or was meant to mock, ridicule or belittle the Plaintiff or Plaintiff No. 1 in particular, 2s lloged sty that the laughter in fact suggests fad means only oo ting ate steno ny oi hana meu te entertainment of public and nothing more, 1. deny that the alleged defamatory statement in any manner suggests the interprecation as contained ‘in the paragraph under reply, I say that the Plaintiffs have made false statements on oath and on this ground itself the Plaintifi's are not entitled to any relief (With reference to paragraph 4.4 of the Plaint, I say that the plaintiff hhas deliberately suppressed the complete conversation between the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and has choven to disclose only selective extracts with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Court. 1 submit that on this ground also the Defendant is disentitied to any relief, @ With reference to paragraph 4,5 of the Plaint, 1 say that I am not aware of the contents and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof.@ iS) With woternce to paragraph 46 ofthe Plain, the contents are denied tSofieried that Defendont No.2 had made the commentato mislead the "> “public /listeners or to create an impression that Plaintiff No I's expenses had been bome by Lalit Medi or that there was any kind of association between Plaintiffs and Mr. Lalit Modi. It is denied thatthe broadcast has created an impression in the minds of the public or listeners to the effect that the said interview was a result of a cory, friendly and choreographed exercise. I say that it fs pertinent to note thatthe contents of the interview conducted by the Plaintiff are not produced before this Hon'ble Court nor have they disclosed the particulars of its exaet venue. I call upon the Plaintiffs to produce the entire unedited version of the said interview to deiemmine before this Hon"ble Court their allegations that it was conducted in perfectly fir, balance, objective and reasonable way, and was an honest journalistic exercise as is being claimed. In fact as admitted by the Plaintiff, it the controversy surrounding around Mr, Lalit Modi which in fect raises curiosity of what he hes stated in the interview and has nothing to do with the Plaintis, (m) With reference to paragraph 5.1 of the Plaint, I deny that the broadcast implies that Plaintiff No.1 is at the beck-and-call of Lalit Modi. (n) With reference to paragraph 5.2 of the Plaint, I deny that the broadcast suggests an unholy nexus and association between Plaintiff No.1 ‘and Lalit Modi which undermines the very credibility of Plaintiff No.1 as a journalist \ \(XSWith reference to paragraph 5.3 of the Plaint, 1 deny that the 8 Ss ast suggests that there is @ connection between Lalit Modi and the _- Soft No.1 by reason whereof the Plaintiff No.! has taken or would take monetary and other favors from Lalit Modi namely by Lalit Modi paying for Plaintiff No.1s travel etc., undertaken for the interview given to Plaintiff No.l, The same is a figment of the Plaintiffs imagination. No ordinary | person knowing the Plaintiff No. 1 would understand the sentences in the Ke rmaiter alleged in the plaint, () With reference to paragraph 5.4 of the Plaint, I deny thet the broudcast necessarily implies that Plaintiff No.1 would accept favors from Lalit Modi, Plaintiff No.2 is a Media Organizstion that is run on the sordid ‘ad unethical principles that follow from the conduct of Plaintiff No.1. 1 deny that these can ever be the implications that a common man would ever ‘draw from the single statement made by the Defendam No. 2. The said av 2 pliesiond which the Platt fels the one would craw ftom the single sae ot Dente No 2 td ime ad at / Jausible, Yn fact there is no imputation whatsoever on the Plaintiff No. 2 herein, The fact that the Plaintiff No. 2 has joined itself in the present action is proof that the alleged defamatory statement is of no consequence to the plaintiff No. 1 and has caused no harm, loss, damage or injury to them singularly or jointly (@ With reference to paragraph 6 of the Plaint, I say thet | am unaware of the contents of the said paragraph and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof, I deny thatthe broadcast made any insinuation as alleged.fact. Tsay that there is no question of the alleged statements being of any derogatory consequence to the Plaintifé or their Directors and Management of Plaintiff No.2. Since the statement was made in jest, I say that there is no question of it being made without any underline basis or truth arises in the present case. (5) With reference to paragraph 8 of the Plaint, I say that itis true that the comments made by Defendant No.2 are completely of figment of the Defendants imagination and that the same were made in jest and were not seriously made as is evident from the full transeript of the program. In so far as the allegation of the siatement being a pure concoction, false, incorrect and mischievous and without any basis or truth whatsoever is completely cut of place as the statement is not a statement of fact but a statement made in jest without any malice inherent therein or injury caused thereby, (With reference to paragraph 9 of the Plaint, the Defendants do not in any manner dispute what is contained in paragraph 9.1 and 9.2. In fact the controversy does not stretch to the point where the Plaintiff No.1 has with regard to the alleged defamatory article acted contrary to any such principle as alleged. As already siated hereinabove, I deny that there has been any insinuation that the expenses of the trip were paid by Lalit Modi, (u) With reference to parsgraph 10 of the Plaint;-L-say that the Plaintiffs in the said paragraph (accept and admit that the tone of ) defamatory article was couched in a sat tone. However,We @ the extent as is being implied by the Plaintiffs, especially in view of it being ephemeral, (s) With reference to paragraph 11 of the Plaint, I say that jest, humour and satire ought to be taken in the context that they are and one should not steribute motives to the same when none exist. The Plaintifls have wrongly understood the same to have been a masquerade which send a message that professional activity taken by Plaintif'No.1 was or might have been done at the behest, instance and expense of a controversial person, Lalit Modi, thereby damaging the credibility and objectivity of Plaintiff No.1. I say that the Plaintiff having accepted thet jest, humour and satire are part of life end ‘must therefore be sesepted, ought to have accepted the program for what it really was and ought not to imagine exceptional meanings fiom the same, 1 say that the process of this court cannot be used fos ‘any person and catering tothe hypersensitivity ofthe Plaintiff No. {, () With reference to paragraph 12 of the Plaint, I deny that what is said in jest may not be understood in the seme vein by an ordinary listener/viewer/reader. I is too farfetched to imagine that in the present case, a listener of ordinary prudence would infer that the interview of Lalit Modi conducted by Plaintiff No. id for by Lalit Modi. T repeat that the Plaintiffs are either being hyper sensitive or there are other motives behind their coming to the hbsurd conclusior} I say that the statement cannot be said tobe defamatory, derisive or demeaning in any manner. ‘The entice program© L \ () With reference to paragraph 13 of the Plaint, I say that in view of whatever is stated hereinabove, itis denied that the brogdeast wes per say defamatory, demeaning or offensive as alleged and any attempt at camouflaging or masquadering it as a satire and humour must necessarily fil. The fect that it was satirical and humourous statement has not been denied by the Plaintifis (y) With reference to paragraph 14 of the Plaint, 1 say thet the statement Rose ecto Aa se ae (* _/asio channel has become popular because it is humorous and light hearted a concoction of music, sports, cinema and topical issues._In-fact the. statement which states that the said programme is heard by persons 1 sais that the suid “programme is beard by persons commuting while going to work itself reflects that there the said show is running simultaneously with lots of activities that such commuters would be ping sien See involved in doing and furthers the fact that the said programme would not be fone which would be taken seriously. (2) With reference to paragraph 1S of the Plaint, I deny thot the statements mede on the said program were malafide and were made with the intent gain, cheap and ready publicity, and consequently to unjustly and unlawfully enzich the Defendants, There is nothing in the ststement per se to cause any unjust or unlawfully enrichment to the Defendants or any of them, (aa) With reference to paragraph 16 of the Plaint, I deny that the tone and \Y© * && lh i so nce oni ana tcc SF A cetuming and maigning the Pliniiso that they were aimed at making the public believe that the Plaintiffs were accepting favors, moneiary or otherwise from Lalit Modi. . : (bb) With reference to paragraph 17 of the Plaint, I deny that the Comments made are defamatory, mischievous or, misleading in any manner | say that I am not aware of what alleged expenses have been paid by the Plaintiff No, 2 and put them to strict proof thereof, (ce) With reference to paragraph 18 of the Plain:, in view of whatever is stated hereinabove, I deny that the ssid broadcast is per se defamatory of that it in anyway harms the professional reputation. credibility, standing or ‘goodwill ofthe Plaintiff in the eyes of their viewers or the shareholders, ete of the Plaintiff No, 2 as alleged, It is denied that the broadeast in any manner is defamatory of the PI iff No. | or that it seriously harms the good name ‘and personal reputation of the PlaintifT No, | as suggested. (4d) With reference to paragraph 19 of the Plaint, I suy that the allegedly offending statement contained in the programme is a statement made in jest, without any malice or ill will agsinst any of the Plaintiffs and was light hearted humour and therefore the question of verification or comoboratian ar making attempts to contact the Plaintiffs to verify the same were out of question does not arise. 1 deny that the Defendants have acted negligently and reckless and have defamed the Plaintifis, (ee) With reference to paragraph 20 of the Piaint, I say that the contents ‘thereof are not known to the Defendants and hence denied and the Plaintiffs¥ 2 SSfprr to the strict proof thoréof. [ deny that the Plaintiffs have suffered any loss of reputation or that they received any calls from their professional colleagues or friends or viewers es averred by the PlaintiffS. I say that i Is pertinent to note that the Plainti has failed to fumish any names or specifies of the alleged colleagues, friends and viewers who called them as stated in the said paragraph under reply although they set out alleged conversations that they had with them. I deny thatthe elleged conversations ever took placeghe Plaintiffs ore deliberately not furnishing any names because none exist and ere falsely trying to seek shelter by stating that the Te om ch Sa esl | al and present subject and proceeding to sue in Court itself would over seusaiionulize a trivial mater. I deny that the Plaintiffs have suffered any loss of reputation or goodwill as alleged. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs cannot ‘maintain the present action as edmittedly Pleintiff No. 2 has not drawn any adverse inference against Plaintiff No. 1. Furthermore no direct, reasonable loss, damage, harm or injury has been ocessioned to the Plaintiffs which ‘would disentitie them to any relief ‘the present suit. The said paragraph ‘under reply does not aver or establish the direct and probable loss alleged to hhave been occasioned to the Plaintifio, (8) With cofercuve wo paragraph 21 of the Flaint say that the said letter ‘isa matter of record and requires no comment. The said letter dated 19/20" June, 2015 was adequately and sulfici ly replied by the Defendants and is also part of the record., The contents of the said letter dated 19/20* June, 2015 are denied. (eg) With reference to paragraph 22 of the Plsint, I say that the contents ofx ey, vee 7 & Re scd paragraphs oe a matcr of cord. In fit th canens ofthe sid that the appretersions ofthe Plaintiffs without prejudice to the rahts of the Defendants were well taken care of and rested, I sey that in terms of the ssid letter, this Hon'ble Court has clarified thet the Defendants would not a = further broadcast the alleged defamatory artic {ts y thatthe said order has in fact worked out the suit and nothing further remains in the msattr. | 1 fay thatthe alleged defuratory stement has not been broadeast ot polite in ay wien or permanant amore es Gly tee tied that too once fora duration of about six seconds, (bh) With reference to paragraph 23 of the Plaint, I say that in view of ‘whstever is stated hereinabove, I deny the contents of the said paragraph in its entirety. I say that there is no case of damages made out by the Plaintiffs. (ii) With reference to paragraph 24 of the Plaint, I sey that in view of whatever is stated hereinebove, I deny the contents of the said paragraph in its entirety. I say that there is no case of damages made out by the Plaintiffs. There has been no loss of reputation occasioned to the Plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint and in the ssid paragraph undor reply. Gi) With reference to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Plaint, I say that in view of whatever is stated hereinabove, the alleged defamatory statement ‘was broadcasted only once and also that too for 6 seconds ¥nd I deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief as sought. The Plaintiffs have not taken leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and have/egreby waived their rights to the same. gy ll) With reference to paragraph 27 of the Plant, I say that in view of whatever is stated hereinabove the coutents of the said paragraph ae dcuied, in ts entirety. T say thatthe present ease isa gross abuse of the procsss of court, malafide, mischievous and cetering to the; ype sensi sensitivity) Plaintiffs for which exemplary cost be imposed ageinst them. | are that any harm has been caused to the Plaintiffs leave alone harm to the tune of Rs.100 Crores as claimed much less has any + or probable loss been caused to the Plaintiffs, The claim by the plaintiff is imaginary end hypothetical in nature, and Plaintiffs by way of the aforesaid suit intent to extort money from Defendants. (mum) With reference to paragraph 26 of the Plaint, I deny thet any cause of action arose at all for filing the present suit in any manner howsoever. 1 deny that the cause of action is still continuing in view of whatever is stated hereinabove. Without prejudice to above, the plaintiff in its suit has failed to disclose the territory wherein the listener's were located. (nn) With reference to paragraph 29 of the Plaint, T sey that the same boing legal submissions they require no comment, (00) With reference to paragraph 30 of the Plaint, I say that the seme being legal submissions, they require no comments. (pp) With reference to paragraph 31 of the Plaint, { deny that the plaintisf is entitled to any relief as claimed in its suit. I am not aware whether the Plaintiffs have paid any court fees or not@ (3a) With reference to paragraph 32 of the Plaint, 1 say that already stated. Prove in the absence of any valid documents produced the suit is incompetently filed and deserves to be rejected. I deny that the Plaintiff No. 1 has constituted Dr, Puneet Jain as his attomey for signing and verifying the pleadings in the present suit. No such authority has been produced or filed. 1 also deny that Dr. Puneet Jain has eny authority to file the present suit on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2 or that he has been duly authorised or is competent to file the present suit (1) With reference to paragraph 33 of the Plaint, I say the same requires ‘no comments. (5s) With reference to paragraph 34 of the Plaint, I cay that the Plaintiits ‘are not entitled for any reliefS as prayed and the suit be dismissed with cost (t) In view of what is stated hereinabove, the Affidavit in Support of the present Notice of Motion is not replied to in extension. The contents thereof are denied in to the extent inconsistent or contract to whatevey is hereinabove, Solemnly declared at Mumbai this 354 day of August, 20 : al- \ a\ oe SS Advocates for the Defendants, \orr O7 BEFO: igs Notarial Recister nn loa win OZE1 08-08 Maharashins”,Gi =2Rrehana- 2015 me aise aise Hollywood filmein release ha rahi hai, maze aa rahe hein humke, yaar the beauty Is ki yahan pe itne saare log weekend pe wait karte hain ki kaunse filmein dekhe aur jab Hollywood ki filmein , terminatior jaise filmein release ho jinki legacy 1984 se chal rahi hai, aur jin janab ne humko titanic, aliens avatar jeisi filmein di, wahi terminator series ki dost film unhone banayi thi judgement day 1891 me, yaar salli yeh wahi saal hai jahan pe main Mumbai sheher aayi thi Salil and | wes 11 years old. Archana- Aww youre such a baby. Salil - Ay jyada bo! mat 3 saal badi hai mujse sirf Archana - James camroon was amazing with this one aswell, Kyuki iske bachpan me hi isko mardaine ki ek saazish chal rahi thi aur salli ne toh saare terminators dekh hi live hain. Yeh tu inspira kyu hua in filmon ce ? Salil - Yaar , jab woh 11000, 71000 bolte the Arnold swazzeneggar “Jingle* tab bohot mazza aata tha. Us samein action heroes ka zamana tha, Sylvestor Stallion, Arnold Swazzaneggar, har koi jo unko dekhta tha. Aisa Lagta tha yeh apun ko aise banneka hai, infact humare Amitabh bachhan, Dharam Paji , they were all in this zone also to be the angry man, Archana — Yaar lekin salli kuch aise villain wale role bohot pasand aate hain nga, waise Arnold swazzaneggar hain. Woh kehete is picture me kyu mujhe goodboy banaya, mujhe acha nahi lag raha hai Salil butt Archana - Yeh teri tarah hi hai Salil - but he’s, yaar yaar, a good andabad boy in this and that’s the beauty of terminator , tabhi bachpan se lekar aaj tak log bolte hain “ll be back” Archana - Arre yaar 1991 ka yeh sabse badi grossing picture rahi hai aur chaar Oscar award mile hein isko® lur special effects, unbelievable, aapko yaad hoge , but we are for the new one. Amie jaldi wapas aaj2o on radio city 91.1 jorning. “Grow Bumper Plays with tnascodation with Star health Ineurance : Vidyalanker . Station Jingle. Station Promo Ad- Etios Ad ~ Pradhan mantra Jeevan jyoti yojna ‘Ad- Snapdeal Ad—Flipkert Ad~garnier pure active Ad~Tetley mantra by radiocity Ad —TB2 the original Ad~Ford monsoon service camp ‘AD — Apple macbook Ad~Spieelet Ad—All out mosquito spray ‘Ad ~ Snap Deal Ad ~ Shopcruise Ad Etios Ad~ gan pure active Ad ~ Max Time Check Radiocity Top of the hour jingle Kasa Kai showBumper Song Starts — Indiawale Bezubaan, “Amitabh Voice Show Tag*song starts* ‘Tera hone laga hoon Babber Sher ~ (bhai , mein jabhi boIna chahata hoon app log khade ho Jayiye, thoda sammaan di jiye ,sirf gupta ji ko chodke. Rangila ji,yeh aap kaan me ched karake kyu aaye hain ? are pehle wala kaan se sunaayi nahi de raha hoga theekse. Haan aapki tarah nahi hain jo chainni hathoda leke kaan chedwane chale gaye the. Chaliye chaliye , Dhyaan Di jive.. Ishaad “Teri yaadoon ko bhulane keliye dil pe jo rakhi thi humne patharr (3 times) Who sarakkar kidney me aaj patri ban gaye. Abhi dard pehle se jyada hota hai. wah wah Unda sher tha ye miya, ek dum undatha ki isko aap berok tok jungle me Chod sakte hain..Yeh kisi bhi area me jaa sakta hai, is sher ki koi sarhad nahi hai, Arre aaj kal bohot baimaani hone laga hai. Yeh motichoor ke laddo me moti milta hi nahi hai. City First App First Top 3 Salil Archana aur maine decide kiya hai ki apni radiocity ki taxi humlog bandra station tak bhe) rahe hain, agar kisiko bhi uski zaroorat padegi , atleast short distances ke liye, apna keramjeet singh wahan pe wait kar raha hai, it’s a white colour safari haan, isa big car. Yeh last minute me humne decide kiya because humare doston ne phne kiya tha “ Bhal bohot baarish ho rahi hal, auto strike chal rahi hia, we cant use the car, 20 don’t worry , we are there to help you , well send the ear thera. Agai- bandra station ke just aaju baaju mein bulana bhi hal na, you can call us right now 66969191, *Swish* Qarchara ~ Veh Lalit modi ka kissa toh ekdum reality show ho raha hai boss. Surt wad vi ant mol Ka isso te yon me rehne ke liye kuch bhi karenge kya ? Bharat me fo. d chal rahi hal na inko lekar bola”, chalo mein Europe me Rajdeep Sardesai ko jo news channel chelate hath , Bulaleta hoon aur ek exclusive® view deta hoon , toh unko ne unke liye private jet bheja aur bola PS $i. *salil Jaughs* fomes bond style banda hal bess)Yahan se logon ujata hal aur apne country ko bolta hal “Yes this isa long story, please se, SSS" Aalil—Lekin front page news ikka hai ab dekhna yeh hai ki yeh ‘olylwood ki kahani kahan tak jayegi. Salil ~ maggi ke kahani lekin aur dardnaak hoti jaa rahi hal. Pehle toh hum khaane wale keliye dardnaak ho rahi thi , ab banana walo keliye, 1500 workers aur distributors ab berozgar hog aye hain kyuki abhi surety nahi hai ki exactly iske saath karna kya hai archana and youll be shocked Ki maggi ka istemal kis chez ke liye kiya jaa raha hai abhi 320 crore ka magi jalaye gaya cement ki factory mein fuel bane ke live. Archana ~ yaar kya upyog kiya gaya hai , isko kehete hain recyclable energy | love it! Salil ~ Humari maggi ab amar ho chuki hai bheliya, humare buildings ka hissa banne wali hai abhi. Song presell—banno tera swagger. Archana — Radio city ke taxi bulayi aaj no taxi and autos on the street, Radiocity 91.1 ka number 66969191 Salil - Ek cute sa sardarji agar aapko dikh jaye, white si safari ke bahar khada hua at bandra station , Apni gaadi hai woh. You can use it to go any where aaju baaju me theek hai. Ac bhi hai, mazza bhi ayega Goodmorning. Radiocity Station Jingle Radiocity concert ~ brought to you by olx, genex neno Radiocity Time Check ~ Tetley green tea ad ‘Ad - Park side residences Ad- Olx entertainment Ad- Star health insurance \@) DoH. Manapuram gold loan Ad—[Link] Ad- Etios Ad Aurus serenity. ‘Ad~starhealth insurance Ad=Tiny Owl Ad- New india assurance Radiocity Traffic update. Archana - Mere saare dawoodi bora bhai beheno ko namaskar salil aur archana ka aur ramzan ke is baa mahine ki shuruat jo hui hai aur apke rozon ki uske liye all the very best in fact its so strange aaj hi se humara adhik maas shuru ho raha hai jisme bohot daaan punya karna padta hal , subah jaldi utna padta hai, nahana padta hai , iske bare me zaroor batein karenge lekin philhas minibus ke atakne ke walah se Dr BA Road ke paas ho kings circle ke yahan toh railway bridge se matunga ki taraf traffic dheema hua pada hal. Malad ke yahan truck atakne ki wajah se on the highway , times of india fiyover ke yehan se towards kandivall and malad west marve road ke yahen link road junction se orlem church Salil - Aaj aaplog humare kaan naak aur sabkuch banne wale hain because bahar jo strike chal rahi hai , bohot saare log peedit hai trast hai » apni gaadi chal rahi hai, choti choti round maar rahi hai from bandra station aaju baaju mein half half kilometre, apni white colour ki safari hat with our sardarji karamjeet in it. Archana — Yes radiocity ki taxi ko aap bhi bula sekte hain 66969191 call \ jiye aur yeh taxi ko hum aapke paas bhej denge but we want updates from you Mumbai , kaise hel paa rahe ho aap is taxi aur auto strike ko . jo bhi ache se nazara dega aaj Mumbai sheher ka uske iiye dher saari inaame. ‘@ \ a \2\ ej ali Haan lekin aaj aap logon ko hasaana hai. Koi chutkula , koi joke SMA eha saa teaki udhaar chehere jo bahar road pe ghoom rahe hain unpe Exe simile aa jaye. Archana — [Link] ka online shopping voucher , Essel world ka pure parivaar ke liye mere paas vouchers hain ki aap jayein aur enjoy karein and revivel indian thali restaurant vouchers sirf radiocity $4.2 par, Goodmorning.SW Certified True Copy of the Resolution passed by the Bonrd of Dirsetors of Music Broadeast Private Limited (the company’) in their meeting held on January 31, 2014 “RESOLVED THAT the Beard of Direcors ofthe Company do cates the auhoriy grented to Mr, Ashish Shah, AVP ~ Finance of the Company for signing all papers, applications, pint, replies, petions and all otter documents, ec, as wel as acai, for anon behalf of ‘he Company, as may be required to be fled in the Income Tax, Service Tax of before any other Government Authority, Tribunal, court and/ or local authorities in connection with any legal proceedings, by or against the Company end to represent the Company in all other matters thereto and to do all other acts, deed and thing relating to that effect on behalf of the Company from time t ime unless resolved atherwise RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Conified True Copy of the resolution be givea to any Court, pal, quas-lepal, government bedy ireluding any Forums ela, under the signature of the Direciots oF Ms Apurva Purohit, CEO cr Mr. Chirag Dagan, Company Secretary of the Compary, Certified to be true Por Muste Broydeast Private Limited ye Company SecretaryIn The High Court of Judicature At Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Notice of Motion (L) No. 1777 of 2015 In Suit (L) Ne.co0 we2015, Mr. Raldeep Sardesai & Ant. Plaintts Vis ‘Music Broadcast Private Ltd. & Ors Defendants Afidavitin Reply of Ashish Shab Dated this 3" day of August, 2015 Mss. Gajria & Co, Advocates forthe Defendants Dll Jeevan Iyot, Cawasi Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai - 4000001 Pdvecates ule SSS