RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The plaintiff claims Rs 25 lacs as damages for defamation by the libelous article written and published by the defendants in their magazine “Opportunities Today” of September, 2001. The said article is under the column “Student Alert” and is titled “Flights of Fancy Crash Courses or Crashing Hopes ?!?.” The article comments on the small/limited number of vacancies for the posts of flight purser, air hostess and cabin crew in the airlines industry and the large number applicants for the same. It proceeds to tell that there are over a dozen institutes offering various training programmes to entice students to pay between Rs 15000/- to Rs 20000/- with the hope of scores of vacancies awaiting them; the students are not told of the heavy odds against employment in the said industry and are enrolled with promises of jobs. After commenting generally on the dozen odd institutes, the impugned article comments in particular on “one of the Delhi based institutes” whose operations are at national level. The impugned article tells that the said institute advertises every two months in leading dailies of all metros in the country that there are over 150 vacancies of air hostesses and flight stewards expected to be filled, the institute claims to have DGCA approved professionals working with them as consultants and conducts a preliminary interview of prospective candidates and anyone applying for the interview has to pay non refundable Rs 750/- and selected candidates

have to undergo one week training programme of 18,000 rupees followed by a 100% job assistance and how the said institute is profiteering in this manner.

2. It is significant to state that the article nowhere names any of the institutes nor names the Delhi based institute commented upon in particular. The plaintiff, after the publication of the said article got sent a notice dated 9th October, 2001 (Exhibit P-1) to the defendants claiming defamation and consequent loss to its reputation and claiming Rs 25 lacs as compensation and apology. The defendants vide their advocate’s reply Exhibit P2, inter alia, contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action and claimed to be carrying on a crusade against malpractices in the field of education and denied liability to pay or apologise. The suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, on 29th April, 2004, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit? OPD

2. Whether the suit is signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized person? OPP

3. Whether the article “Flights of Fancy Crash Courses or Crashing hopes ?!?” published by the defendants in the magazine “Opportunities Today” was a defamatory article and if so, whether the same was defamatory to the plaintiff’s reputation? OPP

4. Whether there was any justification for publication of the aforesaid article and if so, its effect? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any damages and if so, from whom and for what amount? OPP

6. Relief.

4. The plaintiff examined their Manager Mr Arun Kumar as their only witness and both the defendants also appeared as witnesses. The cross examination of all the witnesses was conducted before the Local Commissioner.

.5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, my issue-wise findings are as under:-

.Re: Issue No.1.

.6. I had at the beginning of the hearing inquired from the counsel for the defendants whether he insisted on pressing this issue. The counsel for the defendants not only so insisted but has made elaborate arguments on the issue. It is, inter alia, the contention of

.the defendants that the magazine “Opportunities Today” in which the allegedly libelous article has appeared, is admittedly published from Mumbai, that the defendants are admittedly resident of Mumbai and are carrying on business at Mumbai and thus the suit could have been instit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document