A corporation's right to damages for defamation, without pleading or proving actual loss, is recognized, but in the present case, the plaintiff had not proved any defamation or loss or damage. The defendants were protected by the defenses of fair comment and truth, and the suit interfered with the media's rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the right to information of the people.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The plaintiff has sued the defendants Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd and The Editor, Star News for recovery of damages of Rs. 11 crores for defamation, pleading that (i) the plaintiff is a joint sector company under the administrative control of the Department of Fertilizers, Union Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers; (ii) over 90% of the equity of the plaintiff company is held by government funded State Cooperative ventures and Public Sector Companies; (iii) the plaintiff is primarily engaged in the business of marketing and sale promotion of Potassic and Non-Potassic fertilizers and their distribution, besides owning a dairy division and cattle feed plant; (iv) the defendants telecast on Star News channel, on 27th April, 2007 and 28th April, 2007 regarding sale of adulterated/synthetic milk in western UP; in the said telecast the name of the plaintiff was sought to be linked with the sale of adulterated/ synthetic milk in Western UP; (v) the news feature imputed that officers of the plaintiff were associated with sale of adulterated/synthetic milk; (vi) only a fleeting appearance of Mr. A.K. Shrivastav, a non-executive level employee of the plaintiff in the Quality Control Department of the plaintiff was shown in the programme; (vii) though none of the senior management of the plaintiff saw the telecast but the same was brought to the notice of the plaintiff company through friends and well wishers of senior management of the plaintiff company; (vi) the telecast by the defendants is a glaring example of irresponsible journalism oriented to sensationalize issues without verifying the authenticity of the report; (viii) the news feature appears to be motivated with extraneous considerations; (ix) in the telecast, no presence of any chemical substance, in the production plant of the plaintiff at Sikandrabad, UP or the packaging section of the plaintiff in Kundli, Haryana where the milk is actually packed, is shown; (x) there was no material whatsoever to link the plaintiff or to prove association of the plaintiff with the production or sale of adulterated/synthetic milk; (xi) the plaintiff does not source any milk either from Hapur or Meerut, which were the places mentioned in the story telecast by the defendants as the centres for production and sale of adulterated/synthetic milk; (xii) the telecast imputes sale by the plaintiff of adulterated/synthetic milk in Karol Bagh, Rajouri Garden and in other areas of West Delhi; (xiii) the plaintiff does not sell any milk in retail at all and supplies milk only to top institutions of the country who have their own independent quality checks and control in respect of packaged milk; (xiv) no verification of the imputations made against the plaintiff was made from the plaintiff; (xv) no person has made any complaint in respect of the milk produced by the plaintiff since no person gets the milk produced by the plaintiff or consumes the same; (xvi) the telecast has had the effect of lowering the esteem of the plaintiff in the eyes of the general public. The loss to the reputation of the plaintiff and constituents of the plaintiff most of whom are Multi-State Co-operatives is incalculable as the plaintiff built the said reputation over decades of undaunted efforts in the field of agriculture and fertilizers and by observing and upholding the high business standards and commercial practices in its dealings; (xvii) the programme telecast by the defendants has caused the irreversible damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and has adversely effected the business prospects of the plaintiff as the reputation of the plaintiff has definitely been lowered in the eyes of general public and it may take several years for the plaintiff to salvage the damage to its reputation and redeem the faith of the general public; (xviii) the plaintiff submits that in the story telecast by the defendants which was of 45 minutes of duration less than one