2014 Supreme(Bom) 1856

High Court of Judicature at Bombay
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Essel Infraprojects Limited
Versus
Devendra Prakash Mishra & Others
Notice of Motion No. 1086 of 2014 In Suit No. 645 of 2014
Decided on : 01-12-2014

In a libel action at the interlocutory stage if the defendant raises a plea of justification and mentions evidence by which he might substantiate his case, the court is unlikely to grant any interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to restrain further publication of the alleged libel.

Headnote:

Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from further uttering/repeating/writing/publishing/telecasting any programme or news item thereby making defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs or tending to defame or harm the plaintiffs' business and its reputation in any manner whatsoever and also seeks a mandatory order and injunction against defendant no.1 and 2 to remove the Press Release or any other information/messages/articles relating to the plaintiffs and its Non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers of their website or any other Website or media of defendant no.1 and 2 and seeks injunction from displaying the Press release or any defamatory information/message/articles relating to the plaintiffs and their non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers in their website. The court held that the press release issued by defendant nos. 1 and 2 cannot be considered to have been issued bona fide or that the same was not in public interest and dismissed the Notice of Motion.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for damages in the sum of Rs.200 Crores with interest against all the defendants and seeks permanent order and injunction from writing/publishing/telecasting/airing any program of news items thereby making defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs or tending to defend or harm the plaintiffs' business and its reputation. Defendant no. 1 is an RTI activist. Defendant no.2 is an organization formed and run by defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 3 is engaged in the business of broadcasting news channel in Hindi and regional languages who has alleged to have produced the programme “Azab MP Gazab Ghotala” telecasted on its 'Focus News Channel'. Defendant no. 4 is the Chairman and Managing Director and defendant no. 5 and 6 are the directors of the defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 7 and 8 are Group Editor in Chief of 'Focus News channel' and a reporter of the said channel respectively. On 9th May, 2014 before the scheduled Press Conference, a Press Release which was already typed in English was released by defendant no. 1 in connivance and collusion with defendant nos. 2 to 9 with an information that the defendant no.1 would address the press conference on 9th May, 2014 at 3.30 pm. On 13th May, 2014 the said Focus TV Channel time and again telecasted the clippings of the press conference which was held by defendant no. 1 and projected the plaintiffs company as well as its promoters to be land grabbers and scammers which caused immense damage about the image or reputation of the plaintiffs, its promoters and non executive chairman Dr. Subhash Chandra in the eyes of the public at large.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs have not particularized the alleged defamatory portion from the press release and also the telecast. The plaintiffs have generalized the allegations of defamation in the plaint and has basically relied upon the entire press report and the telecast on the news channel. In the case of the suit for libel which is in tort, plaintiffs have to specify the defamatory words from the entire article and/or press release and telecast with details and as to how such words from the material published/telecast, the plaintiffs were defamed. The plaintiffs cannot make any vague plea without particularizing and specifying the defamatory words out of the entire publication unless the words are per se or prima facie defamatory. In my view the plaintiffs have not been able to satisfy from the averments made in the plaint that any of the topics tabularized in the plaint would be per se or prima facie defamatory. A perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by the defendant nos. 3 to 8 indicates that those defendants have raised a specific plea that alleged defamatory words/sentences were required to be setout verbatim in the plaint failing which the plaint is liable to be rejected as not disclosing a cause of action. A perusal of the rejoinder and in particular paragraph 4 indicates that the only answer of the plaintiffs is that the suit discloses the cause of action and that the plaintiffs have setout the grounds of defamation and the defamatory sensity. The plaintiffs have not bothered to apply for amendment of the plaint to setout verbatim the alleged defamatory words in the plaint though such opportunity the plaintiffs had before proceeding with hearing of this notice of motion.

Issues: Whether the press release issued by defendant nos. 1 and 2 can be considered to have been issued bona fide or that the same was not in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants apart from taking a plea of justification will have to show that the statements were made bonafide and were in public interest and that the defendants had taken reasonable precaution to ascertain the truth and that the statements were based on sufficient material which could be tested for its veracity. In India the court is entitled to scrutinize the material tendered by the defendants so as to test its veracity and to find out whether the said statements were made bona fide and that whether they were in public interest. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Dr. Jaswant Trivedi (supra), has held that in a libel action at the interlocutory stage if the defendant raises a plea of justification and mentions evidence by which he might substantiate his case, the court is unlikely to grant any interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to restrain further publication of the alleged libel. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this court is binding on this court and is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. On the basis of documents produced on record which are not disputed by the plaintiffs, in my prima facie view, the submissions of the defendants that the publication and telecast respectively was issued after verifying the documents and that the same was bona fide and in public interest cannot be brushed aside and deserves acceptance.

Final Decision: Notice of Motion is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.