Judgment- Palekar, J.

1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 arises out of a libel suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on the original side of this Court in respect of an Article published in the English Weekly Blitz"" in its issue of 24th September 1960. The plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 300000/- as general damages and prayed for an injunction. A decree has been passed for the full claim with costs and future interest against defendants 1, 2 and defendant No. 4 who is respondent No. 2(a) in the appeal.

2. The plaintiff is a prominent businessman and industrialist of Bombay. At the time of the suit he was a partner in, a firm which had been carrying on the business of Managing Agents of four textile mills. He was a Director of the Bank of India and of several other well-known companies. He was also the Chairman of the Textile Control Board which had been set up by the Government during the last World War. He was also the Chairman of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation.

3. Defendant No. 1 Is the Editor of the ""Blitz"" and has accepted responsibility for the Article referred to above. Defendant No. 2 is a Private Limited Company which owns the newspaper. Original defendant No. 3, with whom we are no longer concerned, was the printer of the issue of the ""Blitz"", but since at an early stage of the suit he tendered an apology, the plaintiff withdrew his suit against him defendant No. 4 was joined subsequently in the suit as a Joint tort-feasor since it was, principally, upon material furnished by him and with his agreement that the article was published in ""Blitz"".

4. The plaintiff claimed that the Article aforesaid, which is separately exhibited as Exhibit 6, was grossly defamatory of him. The whole of the Article was reproduced in the plaint. He alleged that the allegations and imputations made in that Article along with the several innuendoes set out in detail in the plaint were false and malicious, and as a result of the same, the plaintiff was injured in his character, credit and reputation and in the way of his business and had been brought into the public hatred, contempt and ridicule. Therefore, he alleged, he had suffered damages which he assessed at Rs. 3,00,000/-. As the Article itself showed that the defendants contemplated publishing a series of similar articles, the plaintiff further asked for a permanent injunction.

5. The suit was, principally, contested by defendants 1 and 2. That the Article was defamatory was not seriously disputed. The principal defences offered were, (i) justification (ii) fair comment on a matter of public interest; and (iii) qualified privilege. It was also contended that the damages claimed were excessive and disproportionate.

6. After a trial, which, we are told, went on for 101 days, in which most of the evidence was produced by the defendants and very little on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned Judge negatived the three defences referred to above, and holding that the plaintiff had been grossly defamed by that article and punitive damages were awardable in this case, decreed the full claim of damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- with costs. He also Rave the Injunction asked for.

7. It is from this decree that the present appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellants did not press their appeal against the finding of the learned Judge on the pleas of justification and fair comment, but confined their arguments to the plea of ""qualified privilege"". They also pressed the plea that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were excessive, disproportionate and unreasonable.

8. The defence of ""qualified privilege"" is set out in the written statement at para 11A and is as follows:

""11A, Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions of the defendants and in the alternative, these defendants say that the said Article appearing in the issue of Blitz dated 24th September 1960 is protected as being on an occasion of qualified privilege in that the defendants honestly a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document