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

2017 Supreme(Del) 4807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Central Secretariat Club - Respondent
RFA No. 990 of 2017
Decided On : 30-11-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhan Mohan, Ms. Tanu B. Mishra

The main legal point established is that making false and defamatory statements, without evidence, with malicious intent, and for the purpose of pressurizing the plaintiff, constitutes defamation. Additionally, the court clarified the legal interpretation that the game of rummy, played with stakes, does not amount to gambling.

Headnote:

Defamation - False Police Complaint - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Fact of the Case:

The respondent/plaintiff, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, filed a suit against the appellant/defendant for making false and defamatory police complaints. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff for damages caused by the false complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the appellant/defendant's police complaint was false and defamatory, made out of frustration for being terminated from services, and with no evidence to support the allegations. The court also noted that the appellant/defendant failed to prove the factual statements made in the police complaint.

Issues: The issues framed by the trial court included the entitlement to damages for the defamatory complaint and the entitlement to a written apology from the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant/defendant's false and defamatory police complaint was made with malicious intent and without evidence, and that the allegations were aimed at pressurizing the respondent/plaintiff. The court also cited the legal principle that the game of rummy, played with stakes, does not constitute gambling as per the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 825.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

C.M. Nos.42877/2017 & 42879/2017 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M.s stand disposed of.

C.M. No.42878/2017 (condonation of delay)

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No.990/2017 and C.M. No.42876/2017 (stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 29.4.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3 lacs on account of the damages caused to the respondent/plaintiff by making of a false police complaint by the appellant/defendant alleging that gambling goes on in the respondent/plaintiff/club and also that there is a mafia operating in the respondent/plaintiff/club.

4.(i) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff/society filed the subject suit pleading that it is the society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 running a club for sports activities and recreation facilities for retired and working central government employees. The day to day function of the society is looked after by its office bearers as per the bye-laws of the society. Sh. Harbhajan Singh is the President of the respondent/plaintiff/society and who has been holding different positions in the management of respondent/plaintiff society for the last 48 years and who was also the Director of Kendriya Bhandar having impeccable reputation and respect for his honest and sincere work culture. The services of the appellant/defendant were engaged by the respondent/plaintiff as a helper but his services were terminated by the respondent/plaintiff/society in around the year 2013 on account of charges of misconduct which were leveled and proved against the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant was served with a charge sheet, enquiry was held and it was found that the appellant/defendant’s behavior was unbecoming and that there were found false and fabricated complaints by the appellant/defendant against the respondent/plaintiff and its office bearers. The appellant/defendant had made on 8.9.2015 a complaint to the police making the following allegations:-

“i. “Ramanad Sharma ne club ke andar apna ek mafiya bana rakha hai jisme usne club ke President (Harbhajan Singh), Senior President (Ramesh Chandra Batra), General Secretary (Rajkumar Dhingra), Club Staff Deepak Sharma/Sanjay Sharma/Bharat Singh, Canteen Staff Pashupati Nepali Hai”.

ii. “Ramanand Sharma/Bharat Singh:- In dono ka karya Club ke andar 8.30 baje se lekar 10.30 baje har table se juaa naal nikali jaati hai. Jisse ki har roz kai hazaron ruppes naal ke roop mein ikkathhe hote hain. Iske sath-sath Ramanand Sharma Hawala ke karobar se bhi juda hua hai. Wo Nepal, Sri Lanka, Goa ke liye hawala ka karya karta hai Jiske badle mein 10 pratishat commission milta hai. In sab karyon ko Ramanand Sharma Club ke parisar ke andar baithkar karta”.

(ii) As per the plaint the allegations made in the police complaint dated 8.9.2015 were totally false as made by the appellant/defendant and in fact the same were defamatory. Pursuant to the complaint Sub-Inspector Sh. Mantosh Kumar of police station Mandir Marg visited the respondent/plaintiff/club on various dates between 16.9.2015 and 9.10.2015 for holding an enquiry. Finding no substance in the complaint of the appellant/defendant, the police directed the complaint to be filed and which opinion of the Sub-Inspector was accepted by the SHO and the DCP. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that act of the appellant/defendant in making false allegations has tarnished the image of the respondent/plaintiff/club and its office bearers and employees. Respondent/plaintiff therefore served the appellant/defendant a legal notice dated 5.1.2016 demanding an unconditional apology from the appellant/defendant failing which it was informed that the appellant/defendant wi























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

AI

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