SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 82

High Court Of Delhi
MOTHER DAIRY FOODS AND PROCESSING LTD - Appellant
Versus
ZEE TELEFILMS LIMITED - Respondent
L.A. : 8185 of 2003
Decided On : 01/24/2005

Advocates Appeared:
DARPAN VADHVA, MANINDER SINGH, MUNISH MALHOTRA, PRATIBHA M.SINGH, RAJIV NAYAR

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Suit for permanent injunction and damages - Restraint sought from telecasting, publishing and showing of website programme alleged to be defamatory of plaintiff - Right of journalists to criticise - Accountability and responsibility of media to its readers and public in general- Held that sweeping comment without sufficient research in the matter is not proper - Application for interim injunction dismissed with these observations.

Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF by the application bearing LA. No. 8185/2003 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, seeks a restraint on the defendant from telecasting, publishing or showing on the website, its programme titled "inside Story - Safed Doodh Ka Kala karobar" or any variant of the said programme, insofar as it concerns the name, goodwill and fame of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and seeks a decree of damages of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- (Rupees one crore five lacs only ). Plaintiff claims that the impugned programme contains references to the plaintiff which are defamatory. Programme has immensely harmed the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF, Mother Dairy Food Processing Ltd. a Public Sector Enterprise is a major supplier of milk and milk products. It professes to supply quality milk in the National Capital Region, while offering remunerative prices to rural milk producers organized under a cooperative framework, from whom supplies are obtained for processing of milk. Plaintiff claims to cater to one million households in the capital region with supply of 17 lacs litres milk per day. It has automated liquid milk booths from where approximately 8 lacs litres of milk is sold. It offers other milk products like flavoured milk, curd, butter, etc. Plaintiff claims to have a share of 40% of the total liquid milk market in Delhi and around 60% of the branded liquid milk market.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF avers that it has a state of art microprocessor based intelligent automation system to indicate various level of milk processing. A high level of plant automation using inter-link and numerous quality checks, ensures the desired quality in processing the products. Plaintiff has new refrigeration plant which is technologically advanced and energy efficient. Plaintiff is the recipient of ISO-9002, IS-15000 HAT CC, IS-14001. Plaintiff was conferred by the National productivity Council in the year 1988-89 and consecutively for three years from 1995-96. Plaintiff s turnover is Rs. 1000/- crores. It has two product divisions i. e. (i) dairy products, and (ii) fruits and vegetables. The dairy products are marketed under the brand name "mother Dairy" while the fruits and vegetables are marketed under the brand name "safal".

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF claims that the milk received by it is a processed and subjected to stringent tests, sixteen in number and thereafter the processed milk which is ready for sale, is subjected to 21 tests enumerated in para 10 of the plaint.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFF s grievance is that the defendant through one of its channels called "zee News" telecast the programme called "inside Story" on 3. 8. 2003 at 9. 30 p. m. titled as "safed Doodh Ka Kala Karobar". The said programme purported to be an investigation into how synthetic milk was being manufactured. During the course of the said investigation, the defendant claims to have got synthetic milk prepared. The programme shows that a can of synthetic milk was left outside and picked up by the van of Parag Dairy in aligarh, U. P. , along with other milk. The plaintiff procures a substantial quantity of milk from Parag Dairy. A representative of the defendant as a Lab analyst is stationed at Parag Dairy. The programme depicts that sample of synthetic milk as presented at Parag Dairy cleared six quality tests. Thereafter the analyst tested the sample through machine which was hardly used, when the synthetic milk failed to clear the quality tests.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff also finds the depiction of the second instance in the telecast objectionable. The Journalist is shown to have poured milk in two different bottles one alleged containing the milk of the plaintiff and the other containing milk of a local dairy. Both the bottles containing the milk were presented for test at the plaintiff s laboratory where it is claimed that both the samples failed the quality tests. In other words it is c









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top