IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T. Bedi S/o Baba Pyaare Lal Bedi – Appellant
Versus
Kabir Bedi S/o Late B.P.L. Bedi – Respondent
M.F.A. No. 8528 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defamation claim and details of the book published. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and its implications on reputation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defendants' arguments against the defamatory claims. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal claims about fraud and misrepresentation. (Para 11) |
| 5. legal context for defamation and evidence requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. judiciary's view on defamation regarding public figures. (Para 19) |
| 7. trial court's reasoning in rejecting injunction request. (Para 44 , 46 , 60) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 61) |
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and learned Senior counsels for respondent No. 1 and caveator-respondent No. 2/defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The plaintiff while filing a suit before the Trial Court sought direction to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the plaintiff for having published the defamatory statement against the plaintiff in a book named ‘Stores I must tell: The Emotional Life of an Actor’ by Kabir Bedi and also to retrain the defendants, their agents, executors, distributors, websites, e-business portals or other like agents and others from selling the book and direct the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith remove the defamatory content published by them from the book and in the event failing to repay the sums due to the plaintiff, to direct the attachment and sale of shares belonging to the defendant No. 1 in the defendant No. 2-company and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The main contention urged in the plaint by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of T-Machinery (in the field of mining technology). He has two siblings one of which is the defendant No. 1 and he is currently residing in Bengaluru. The defendant No. 1 is an Indian Film Actor, whose career has spanned three continents covering India, the United States of America and Italy among other European countries in three media being film, television and theatre. The defendant No. 1 is an eminent film personality throughout the country as well as abroad. The defendant No. 2 is a publishing business house in India acquired by Amazon which was earlier a Trent Limited subsidiary and is one of the leading publishing houses in India. Westland Publications Private Limited was incorporated in the year 2016 and is registered at Registrar of Companies, Chennai.
4. The defendant No. 1 authored a book named ‘Stories I must Tell: The Emotional Life of an Actor’ by Kabir Bedi ISBN:9789390679409 (“the book”). The copyright of the book belongs to the defendant No. 1. The above mentioned book has been launched and published by the defendant No. 2 on 19.04.2021 and is very popular and it is available to public in India and abroad for reading/purchase online. It is stated that plaintiff recently learnt from an acquaintance that the said book has certain statements made by the defendant No. 1 inter-alia making allegations, innuendos against him, his character, his reputation and wanted a clarification to know the truth. The plaintiff was shocked by the same and had the opportunity to peruse the book. In the said book, some of what has been stated by the defendant No. 1 is extracted hereunder:
(7.2) “The most painful of all, my brother Ranga”
(7.3) “An unexpected official letter in the post led to my discovering what had happened”
(7.4) “Eventually, I had to file a case of fraud against him in Nelamangala Court near Bengaluru in 2016”
(7.5) “It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do”
(7.6) “I idolised him”
(7.7) “But that’s a story for another time”
(7.8) “Trust is a perishable commodity, its gold only if it lasts”
It is contended that the person referred to as “Ranga” in the above said book is the plaintiff, who is the elder brother of the defendant
Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Union of India
His Holiness Shamar Rimpoche vs. Lea Terhune and Others
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
Nachiketa Walhekar vs. Central Board of Film Certification
Prakash Jha Productions and Another vs. Union of India and Others
R. Rajagopal vs. J. Jayalalitha and Others
R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
The balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression must be upheld, emphasizing that claims of defamation require full trial for verification.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The right to privacy in matrimonial matters is protected under Article 21, and courts must carefully balance this right against freedom of expression when considering interim injunctions in defamatio....
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
Appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Procedural defe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.