Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, JJ.
X Corp. – Appellant
Versus
Naresh Kumar Agarwal HUF and Others – Respondents
FMA No. 611 of 2022, CAN No. 1 of 2022, CAN No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 19-07-2024
Injunction - Defamation - CPC Section 94, Order 39 - The court interpreted Section 94(c) of the CPC, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to Order 39 for granting temporary injunctions, highlighting the distinction between incidental and supplemental proceedings, which influenced the decision to set aside the injunction order.
Fact of the Case:
A defamation suit was filed against several defendants due to defamatory statements made on social media regarding a tragic incident. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to prevent further defamatory publications, leading to a series of court orders and appeals regarding the jurisdiction and powers of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's order lacked independent findings on the prima facie case against the newly added defendants and improperly relied on an existing ex-parte injunction without assessing the specific circumstances of the new parties.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the court to grant injunctions under Section 94(c) of the CPC and whether the existing rules and mechanisms provided by the Information Technology guidelines limited the court's powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while Section 94(c) grants the power to issue temporary injunctions, such power must be exercised in accordance with the procedural rules outlined in Order 39 of the CPC, necessitating an independent assessment of each case.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the application for injunction afresh.
JUDGMENT :
HARISH TANDON, J.
1. It raises an interesting point in the instant appeal touching upon the provision contained under Section 94 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to its scope, applicability and exercises of the jurisdiction by the Civil Court vis-a-vis the adherence of the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts may not be adumbrated in details as we feel that summarization of the incidents occurred in course of the proceedings may be apposite and sufficient to address the aforesaid point.
2. A suit for defamation was initially filed against the defendant nos. 1 and 4 founded upon a posting of defamatory words and/or statements resultantly affecting the reputation and the position held by the plaintiffs/respondents in the society. The allegation pertains to an unfortunate death of a girl who fell from a 3rd floor of the house and succumbed to the injury. Several posts were uploaded on the various electronic social platforms, the opinion which led to such unfortunate incident and the words used taking aid of such platform was perceived by the plaintiff defamatory in nature having impact on the reputation and status acquired by passage of time in the society. Since the said social platform was used by numerous persons, the defendant no. 1 (Jhon Doe) was impleaded to prevent such defamatory words and opinions of the numerous persons in the garb of a justice to be imparted to the victim girl which according to the plaintiff is per se defamatory in nature.
3. Apropos the relief claimed in the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was filed and by an Order no. 2 dated 25.6.2021, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction restraining the defendant nos. 2 to 4 from publishing and/or distributing any defamatory and derogatory statements, news, posts and videos in any manner till 31st July, 2021 against the plaintiffs/respondents. The aforesaid defendants were further directed to remove, block and disable the URLs as mentioned in schedules to the plaint forthwith and were further restrained from allowing any publication or displaying in the page operated by the defendant no. 1 in any manner or a form in their respective platform.
4. Amidst the pendency of the said ad-interim order of injunction initially operated against the original defendants, an application for addition of party was filed to implead the defendant nos. 5 to 7 which was eventually allowed. It is averred therein that social media platform provided by the said added defendants are used for publishing a defamatory and/or derogatory statements, news, photos, videos and the defamatory comments has impacted the reputation and the status of the plaintiffs /respondents. After the addition of the defendant nos. 5 to 7 captioned as an application under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is taken out to extend the operation of the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction with further direction upon them to desist from permitting such defamatory and/or derogatory words or statements, news, photos or videos including the comments made therein to be removed and not to permit such defamatory and/or derogatory statements to be uploaded in their platform till the disposal of the suit.
5. By an Order no. 17 dated 19.2.2022 the said application is allowed in the following:
The court clarified that the power to grant temporary injunctions under Section 94(c) of the CPC is contingent upon compliance with the procedural requirements of Order 39.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the understanding of the legislative scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 94, O....
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The court applied the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions and found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the injunction.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
Appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Procedural defe....
Temporary injunction – Party approaching Court is not entitled to order of injunction as a matter of right – Grant of interim injunction/permanent injunction is discretionary in nature.
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
