Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 769
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
HARISH TANDON, J.
Gardenreach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited – Appellant
Vs.
Akshat Commercial Private Limited & Another – Respondents
C.S. No. 296 of 2011
Decided On : 31.10.2014
Statements made in a legally recognized proceeding, such as those made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, alleging fraud and vested interest, without evidence of causing damage to reputation or goodwill, do not constitute defamation.
Headnote:
DEFAMATION - LIBEL - RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - S. 6, 19(1), 19(3) - Statements made in a legally recognized proceeding under the Right to Information Act, 2005 alleging fraud and vested interest, without evidence of causing damage to reputation or goodwill, do not constitute defamation.
Fact of the Case:
A Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) filed a suit for damages of Rs. 50 crores against the defendants for defamation. The defendants had written several letters to the PSU and statutory authorities alleging irregularities and fraud in the sale of a piece of land by the PSU. The PSU claimed that these allegations were baseless and had tarnished its reputation and goodwill.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the statements made by the defendants in the correspondences or letters were not libelous in nature so as to give rise to a cause of action for defamation. The court found that the PSU had not successfully proved that the statements had caused damage to its reputation or goodwill.
Issues: Whether the statements made by the defendants in the letters were libelous in nature and gave rise to a cause of action for defamation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in a suit for defamation based on libel, the plaintiff must prove that the allegations made by the defendants are baseless, untrue, and false. The court further held that the statements must be such as to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to injure him in his trade, business, profession, calling, or office.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, holding that the PSU had not successfully proved that the statements made by the defendants were libelous in nature so as to give rise to a cause of action for defamation.
1. The plaintiff has instituted a suit praying a decree for a sum of Rs. 50 Crores as damages for defamation. The plaintiff claims the damages against each of the defendants alleging that by several letters addressed to the plaintiffs and other statutory authorities, the defendants have maligned and tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff Company which is absolutely untrue and baseless.
2. The plaintiffs claim to have acquired reputation and goodwill by dint of productivity, quality and human resource management and acquired a reputation in the economic field being a Dividend paying company. In a meeting of Board of Directors held on 24th August, 2009, it was decided to sale and dispose of the piece and parcel of land measuring 1.25 acres situated at Kantapukur, P.S. South Port, Kolkata-700 001 being a non-performing assets through open tender process. It was further resolved in the said meeting that the valuation of the said property shall be obtained by engaging a Valuer so that reserve price can be fixed with further stipulation to carry out the negotiation with the bidders, if required and to finalize the ultimate deal. The advertisements were published in the various newspapers on 7th November, 2009 inviting the bid from the intending Valuers and M/s. Devcon Engineers and Valuers were entrusted to value the market price in the sealed envelop.
3. Subsequently a notice was published in the newspaper and also in the official web-site of the plaintiff Company inviting the intending buyers to submit their bid. Pursuant to the said notice, eight persons submitted their bids, which were opened in presence them on 16th July, 2010. The highest offer which was received in pursuance of the said notice was from Mr. Intikhab Alam at Rs. 4.55 crores which was below the valuation submitted by the said Valuer. Thereafter, a negotiation was made with the said highest bidder who subsequently raised the price to Rs. 6 Crores which was in tune to the price indicated in the valuation report. The sale was subsequently confirmed in favour of the said highest bidder on 2nd November, 2010. After the confirmation of the sale, a letter dated 30th November, 2010, was issued by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff offering to pay 20% higher price than what was agreed by the said highest bidder. The said letter further contains an allegation as to the irregularity in the process by which the said land was sold to the said highest bidder by the plaintiff Company. By subsequent letter dated 5th January, 2011, the defendant No. 1 addressed to the plaintiff as well as the Ministry of Defence signifying their intention to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the said sell which was not only bad in law but was done by practicing fraud upon the Public Sector of India.
4. On 6th January, 2011, the defendant No. 1 further caused letter, both to the plaintiff and the Ministry of Defence, alleging that the publication of sale notice was a mere eye wash and intended to fill up the gaps. It was further alleged therein that the sale notice did not contain the reserve price and the terms of sale indicated therein reflects the clear fraud committed by the Officers of the plaintiff Company. In further letter dated 21 January, 2011, the defendant No. 1 made a defamatory statement that the Public Information Officer of the plaintiff Company has refused to supply informations and documents under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which gave rise to a presumption of fraud in respect of the sale of the said property. The appeal against the order of the Public Information Officer further stood rejected and the said order is carried to a second appeal under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Chief Information Commissioner. A fresh application under Right to Information Act was taken out by the defendant No. 2 by supplying the information/documents and in the said application, it is stated
