ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISE LTD vs GANPATI DIGITAL NETWORK on 8 October 2026

ORDER

1. Case taken up. Learned Counsel for both side are present.

2. Heard over Miscellaneous Application No. 253/ 2026, moved by Petitioner for making amendment in Petition, by way of adding in the array of Respondents. The same has been objected.

3. The law cited and pressed by Learned Counsel for Respondent was replied by Counsel for Petitioner, by way of law of Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, that law has been discussed and precedented otherwise. This second citation of 2004 SCC Online Del 1047 Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka Engineering and Another, pressed by Learned Counsel for Respondent is with regard to a Petition wherein a Civil plaint was filed by an entity, which was proprietorship concern, as a juristic person, without naming the proprietor in person. Hence, this was held to be that a plaint may not be filed by an entity, which is not a juristic person, like Company or firm.

4. But, so far as present case is concerned, the amendment in Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is of specific effect that a suit may be filed against a name in which any person is running a business organisation. It may not be Partnership firm or a Company. The same may happen in case of a Hindu Undivided Family and the rules given under this Order XXX of CPC relating to registered firm or any Corporation will be applicable for that business name entity, and the present petition has been filed against Ganpati Digital Network, the name and style in which proprietor Viresh Tomar was performing its business and in whose name, Interconnect Agreement was got executed. Hence, t he relief claimed in main Petition is against that business name entity. Hence, the above business name entity is not a dead person. Rather, it was Viresh Tomar, who had died, and the same is being said to be under bonafide belief of the Petitioner, because the relationship continued in the same name and through same e-mail address by Vishant Tomar, who in his reply as well as in verification clause of same, in the affidavit had claimed to be sole proprietor of that business entity. Though after raising this issue before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the stand was taken to be a suit filed against a dead person, being of effect of non est , in view of the law of Odisha High Court, cited supra, and for this, the direction is for disposal, within a stipulated period. Now, the question has been narrowed down with regard to the effect of amended provision of Order XXX Rule 10 of CPC with regard to present dispute.

5. Learned Counsel for Respondent is requesting for an opportunity, for arguing on this matter after going through the bill of amendment, the legal precedent with regard to above provision, after its amendment, if any, of Hon'ble Apex Court, in this regard.

6. Hence, the time for it, is being granted.

7. Continued for hearing on 15.10.2026.

( JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM)MEMBER

/NC/