Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. vs Yohan Tengra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J.
Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Yohan Tengra & Ors. – Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 33254 of 2022 In Suit (L) No. 33253 of 2022
Decided on : 05-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Mr. Hitesh Jain, Mr. Yuvraj Sing, Monisha Mane Mr. Bijal Vora, Pranav Nair i/b Parinam Law Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Keswani a/w Mr. Dinesh Pednekar i/b Shailesh Poria i/b Economic Laws Practice, Mr. Vedchetan Patil a/w Saransh Jain, Sneha Dey, Sunayana Kashid, Ishwarlal Agarwal a/w Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Vikas Pawar, Sohan Agate, Samkit Shah, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Tanveer Nizam a/w Ms. Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Mr. Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Sohan Agate, Vikas Pawar, Samkit Shah, Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha i/b Abhishek Mishra a/w Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Sohan Agate, Vikas Pawar, Samkit Shah

Headnote:
DEFAMATION - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - INTERIM RELIEF - RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM MAKING DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS - STATEMENTS/CONTENTS/POSTS UPLOADED BY DEFENDANTS ON WEBSITES/LINKS/TWITTER HANDLES - PER SE DEFAMATORY - NO JUSTIFICATION MADE OUT BY DEFENDANTS - MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION THAT PROSECUTION BE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 340 CR.P.C. AGAINST PLAINTIFFS FOR SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS/ARTICLES ARE OF NO MERIT - SUIT BEING DEFAMATORY SUIT, COURT NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER ISSUE AS TO WHETHER VACCINES ARE BAD AND/OR HAVING HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS - INTERIM APPLICATION PARTLY MADE ABSOLUTE.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, a company and its CEO, filed a defamation suit against defendants for statements/contents/posts uploaded on websites/links/twitter handles, which they claimed were per se defamatory. The statements included referring to plaintiffs as "murderers" and "criminals", and calling for Plaintiff No.1 to be shut down and Plaintiff No.2 to be arrested. Plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining defendants from making and/or publishing and/or reproducing and/or circulating and/or speaking and/or communicating any derogatory and defamatory statements, and to issue an unconditional apology. Defendants claimed that the statements were made bona fide and in public interest, and that they had taken reasonable precautions to ascertain the truth.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the statements/contents/posts uploaded by defendants on websites/links/twitter handles were per se defamatory. The court found that there was no justification made out by the defendants in support of the statements made, and that the material relied upon by the defendants in support of their contention that prosecution be initiated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiffs for suppression of documents/articles was of no merit. The court held that the suit being a defamatory suit, the court was not called upon to consider the issue as to whether the vaccines were bad and/or having harmful side effects.
Issues: Whether the statements/contents/posts uploaded by defendants on websites/links/twitter handles were per se defamatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statements/contents/posts uploaded by defendants on websites/links/twitter handles were per se defamatory. The court found that there was no justification made out by the defendants in support of the statements made, and that the material relied upon by the defendants in support of their contention that prosecution be initiated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiffs for suppression of documents/articles was of no merit. The court held that the suit being a defamatory suit, the court was not called upon to consider the issue as to whether the vaccines were bad and/or having harmful side effects.
Final Decision: The court partly made absolute the interim application and restrained the defendants from making and/or publishing and/or reproducing and/or circulating and/or speaking and/or communicating any derogatory and defamatory statements, and directed them to forthwith delete and/or remove the defamatory videos and defamatory contents from their respective websites and social media platforms and to issue an unconditional apology.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Interim Application, the Applicants/Plaintiffs are seeking to restrain the Defendant Nos.1 to 5, (themselves and through their servants, agents, assigns and/or any person claiming by or through them) from making and/or publishing and/or reproducing and/or circulating and/or speaking and/or communicating, any derogatory and defamatory statements i.e., the defamatory videos and the defamatory contents as mentioned in Exhibits E to K of the Plaint and/or any like nature in any medium including television, print media and/or the internet and/or whatsapp in any manner whatsoever. Further consequential relief has been sought inter-alia against Defendant Nos.1 to 5 to forthwith delete and/or remove the defamatory videos and the defamatory contents at Exhibits E to K of the Plaint from their respective websites and social media platforms and to issue an unconditional apology stating that the defamatory contents were baseless, unsubstantiated and unwarranted. The relief has also been sought against YouTube and Twitter and other social media platforms in particular, Defendant Nos.6 and 7 or social media accounts, in like nature to the aforementioned relief.

2 The Plaintiffs have filed the defamatory Suit against the Defendants in respect of statements/contents/posts uploaded on the websites/links/twitter handles of the Defendants which they claim are per se defamatory and referred to as Defamatory Content Nos.1 to 6, in paragraph 15 (f) to 15 (p) of the Plaint. In the tabular form at paragraph 15 (p) of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have set out as one of Defamatory Contents, being Defamatory Content No.6 which is as under :

Sr. No. Date of Post Posts

1. 2nd October 2022 “Our taxpayer money is being used to murder millions! High time we shut down the @SerumInstIndia #arrestadarpoonawalla...”

2. 30th September 2022 “ChaloPune #ArrestAdarPoonawala...”

3. 28th September 2022 “Arrest Adar Poonawalla...”

4. 26th September 2022 “A Humdust has been issued by Bombay High Court for Adar Poonawala for Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s vaccine murder case.”

3. According to the Applicants/Plaintiffs these statements/ contents/posts which the Defendants have uploaded on their websites/links/twitter handles make false and defamatory statements against the Applicants/Plaintiffs.

4. Plaintiff No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Company’s Act, 1956 and Plaintiff No.2 is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Plaintiff No.1. The father of Plaintiff No.2 viz. Dr. Cyrus Poonawalla founded a registered partnership firm under the name and style of “Serum Institute of India”, to carry on the business, inter alia, as manufacturer and trader of vaccines at affordable prices. In or about May 1984, Plaintiff No.1 was promoted by Dr. Cyrus Poonawalla to take over the business of the partnership firm “M/s. Serum Institute of India” and to carry on the business of the said firm.

5. The Plaintiffs have in paragraph 3 of the Plaint stated that Plaintiff No.1 is currently ranked as India’s No.1 biotechnology company, manufacturing highly specialized lifesaving biologicals like vaccines using cutting edge genetic and cell-based technologies, antisera and other medical specialties. The Plaintiff No.1 is well-known not only in India but across the world and is one of the few private limited companies with a tremendously high turnover and has come to achieve this position with its own funds and resources and without public participation in equity. The Plaintiffs have thereafter in paragraph 4 of the Plaint stated that they are recipients of various awards and accolades and have received worldwide recognition for the work done by them in the field of medicine and pharmaceuticals. They have set out some of the awards and recognition received by Plaintiff No.1. They have further set out the qualifications of Plaintiff No.2 as well as the awards and accolades received by Plaintiff No.2, for his contribution in the field of medicine, in paragraph 5 of the Plai