IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Swami Ramdev & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. & Ors - Respondents
CM(M) 556, 557 of 2018 & CM APPL. 19354, 19356 of 2018
Decided On : 29-09-2018
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner Swami Ramdev through his GPA holder Jaideep Arya, S/o Om Prakash vide the present petitions CM(M) 556/2018 and CM (M) No. 557/2018 assails the impugned orders dated 28.4.2018 and 28.4.2018 of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, East District in MCA No.08/2017 and in MCA No.10/2017, filed by Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain (hereinafter referred to as the Author) and M/s Juggernaut Books Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Publisher) respectively in the appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended, of the BOOK “Godman to Tycoon-The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev”, ISBN No.9789386228383 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BOOK’) having been filed by the author (Ms. Priyanka Pathak Narain) and M/s Juggernaut Books Private Limited, the publisher of the BOOK respectively, against the orders of the learned Trial Court of the ACJ-CCJ-ARC (East) in CS No.619/2017 in the suit instituted by Swami Ramdev through the GPA holder against Ms.Priyanka Pathak Narain the author of the BOOK herein named above. M/s Juggernaut Books Private Limited (the Publisher), M/s Amazon India, M/s Flipkart Internet Private Limited and M/s Manipal Technologies Limited, arrayed as defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the said suit respectively with the prayers made therein to the effect:
“i. To pass the order against the defendants for restraining the defendants No.2,3 and 4 from publishing & selling the book titled as Godman to Tycoon; The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev as the same violates the Fundamental Right to Reputation as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the defendant no.1 has stated the contents without verifying the same.
ii. pass an order to the restrain the defendants with effect that the Book is nothing but an attempt to malign the image of the Baba Ramdev by the defendant no.2,3,4 in the eyes of the public at large, as the content/information of the book is nothing but representing the facts in a twisted manner against the plaintiff.
iii. it may be declared as objectionable content written by defendant no.1 against plaintiff in the statements in Para no.1 &2 of page no.201 of the conclusion of book (Godman to Tycoon, The untold story of Baba Ramdev) more particularly mentioned in the book are derogatory and affects the character of the plaintiff and tarnishes the reputation of the plaintiff and therefore be struck down from the said book (Godman to Tycoon, The untold story of Baba Ramdev).
iv. pass a decree of permanent injunction order to delete those paras no. 1 & 2 of page no, 201 and other paras of book on different pages of book or lines as the case may be from the said book (Godman to Tycoon, The Untold story of Baba Ramdev) and till deletion not to distribute or sell by any means the same in market and not to write any such defamatory statements about the plaintiff in future.
V. to pass an order against the defendants pending hearing and disposal of the suit defendant and his associates, agents, distributors, publishers be restrained by and order and injunction from selling, distributing parting with the book and to call for all the books from the market containing the statements referred in paras in the book (Godman to Tycoon, The untold story of Baba Ramdev) to the plaint.
vi. pass a decree of temporary injunction against the defendant no.1 and in favour of plaintiff by way of restraining defendant no.1, not to give any interview in the print media, electronic media, social media or any kind of circulation, by which the content of defamation may be circulated in future.
vii. The Hon‘ble Court after declaring to the extent as prayed above the Hon‘ble court may quantify the Damages and grant the same to the plaintiff along with interest and other incidental charges expenses, costs and interest Pendent-lite and future, from the date of its accr
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat
Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Vinod Mehta & Ors. 102 (2003) DLT 774
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others
Campbell v. MGN Ltd. (2004) 2 AC 457
Greene v. Associated Newspapers
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhatisgarh and others
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
Mohd. Mehtab Ktean v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan
Morgans Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
Nilgiris Bar Association v. T.K. Mahalingam and another
Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan and others
P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India
R v. Advertising Standards Authority ex parte Vernons Organisation Ltd.
R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and others v. J. Jayalitha and another
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Sardar Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie & Ors.
State of Gujarat and another v. Hon‘ble High Court of Gujarat
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.