Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Amitava Lala, J.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The Observer (India) Limited & Ors. – Respondents
Suit No. 7 of 1997
Decided On : April 13, 1998
DEFAMATION - TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED V. THE OBSERVER OF BUSINESS AND POLITICS AND OTHERS - SECTIONS 499, 500, 502 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION - COURT GRANTED DECREE FOR DAMAGES AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR PUBLISHING DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO), filed a suit for damages for defamation against the defendants, a newspaper company and its officials, and three members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly, for publishing defamatory statements against the plaintiff company alleging corruption and improper business practices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had published false and defamatory statements against the plaintiff company, which had caused damage to the company's reputation and goodwill. The court also found that the defendants had not tendered an unconditional apology or taken any steps to rectify the damage caused by their statements.
Issues: Whether the defendants' statements were defamatory and caused damage to the plaintiff company's reputation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' statements were defamatory and had caused damage to the plaintiff company's reputation. The court relied on the principles of defamation law, including the gravity of the libel, the extent of publication, and the defendant's conduct before, during, and after the publication. The court also considered the fact that the defendants had not tendered an unconditional apology or taken any steps to rectify the damage caused by their statements.
Final Decision: The court granted a decree for damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants. The court awarded damages of Rs. 5 lakhs each against each of the defendant members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly, and granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further publishing the defamatory statements.
This is a suit for damages for defamation enquiry into damages, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and/or each of them and/or servants and/or agents from further publishing the words get out in Paragraph 12 hereof or any similar libel upon the plaintiff and/or its management along with other consequential reliefs.
2. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned newspaper company and its officials i.e. Printer/Publisher, Chairman, Editorial Board & Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Journalist etc.
3. The defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly representing a political party.
4. The plaintiff company is controlled and managed by the following Executives and the Board of Directors :-
Mr. R.N. Tata (Chairman)
Mr. Keshub Mahindra
Mr. N.A. Palkhivala
Mr. Akbar Hydari
Mr. S.A. Savavala
Mr. Mantosh Sondhi
Mr. Nusli N. Wadia
Mr. L.P. Singh
Mr. S.M. Palia
Mr. P.K. Kaul (Financial Institutions’ Nominee)
Mr. Suresh Krishna
Mr. G.P. Gupta (Financial Institutions’ Nominee)
Dr. Jamshed J. Irani (Managing Director)
Mr. K.C. Mehra (Whole-time Director)
Mr. Ishaat Hussain (Whole-time Director)
5. A copy of the Balance Sheet of the Company, being public document produced before the Court and kept as exhibit with Court records.
6. The plaintiff stated that the company has contributed large amounts by way of payment of different taxes to the national exchequer to the extent of Rs. 783.35 crores in the year 1995-96 which works out to 33% approximately of the total revenue of the company for the year. The goodwill of the company is well known in India and abroad.
7. In September 1952 the plaintiff discovered chrome ore deposits in Sukinda Valley, Orissa and became interested to get the land for setting up an industry therein. Ultimately erstwhile Raja of Sukinda granted lease in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter right of the Zamindars were vested in the State. After various stages of renewal of lease and change in leasehold area by the intervention of Orissa High Court and subsequently by Supreme Court position of leasehold right as well as area vested to a particular position.
8. By the issuance of the said newspaper. "The observer" dated October 7, 1996 under the heading RAO, PATNAIK FAVOURED TISCO FOR CHROMITE MINING : JD LEADERS the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published of and concerning the plaintiff company and in relation to the conduct of the business of the plaintiff company, the following defamatory words :-
(i) "...... The Leaders Janata Dal MLA's, Mr. Ranendra Pratap Swain, Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patsani and Rajya Sabha MP, Mr. Ras Behari Barik have alleged that both the Chief Minister J.B. Patnaik and former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao received kickbacks to the tune of Rs. 50 Crores for turning a blind eye to the TISCO's activities in the valley during the period ......"
(ii) ........ The legislator claimed that the source of money spent in former Mr. Narasimha Rao's constituency, Behrampur, during the last Lok Sabha elections could be traced back to the Tatas ......"
(iii) "...... J.B. Patnaik and P.V. Narasimha Rao worked in tandem to give reprieve and precuniary benefit to Tata and both acted and behaved like trustees and dormant partners of Tata. In return, the Tata lavishly funded the Congress during general elections of 1996 ........"
9. The plaintiff alleged the meaning of the publication are as follows :-
"(i) The plaintiff company conducts its business in dishonest and improper manner and indulges in corruption and bribery for procuring trading/business gains.
(ii) The plaintiff company do not carry out mining in an usual and proper manner but indulges in random mining which expression necessarily means mining in such a manner as would cause damage to the mines.
(iii) The plaintiff company earned profit by conducting its business in improper and dishonest manner.
(iv) The plaintiff company is involved in a multi-crore chromite scam. The expres
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
