Prathiba M. Singh, J.

I.A.17388/2015 (to bring on record the additional affidavit) in CS(OS) 2919/2014

I.A.17390/2015 (to bring on record the additional affidavit) in CS(OS) 3199/2014

For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The additional affidavits are taken on record. I.As. are disposed of.

I.A.766/2015 (u/O VII Rule 10 CPC) and I.A.15025/2015 (for dismissal of plaint) in CS (OS) 2919/2014

I.A.7351/2015 (u/O VII Rule 10 CPC), I.A. 15030/2015 (for dismissal of plaint) and I.A. 25811/2015 (u/Order VIII Rule 10) in CS (OS) 3199/2014

2. A research report titled Bilking India dated 1st August, 2012 (hereinafter “Report”) published by Veritas Investment Research Corporation (hereinafter “M/s Veritas Investment”) is the origin of the present litigation between the parties. The two Plaintiffs are Indiabulls Real Estate Limited and Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (earlier known as Indiabulls Finance Services Limited). They belong to the Indiabulls Group of Companies and are collectively referred to as “Indiabulls”.

3. M/S Veritas Investment is a Canadian company engaged in the publication of research reports. Defendant No.2 Mr. Neeraj Monga was its executive vice-president and head of research. Defendant No.3 Mr. Nitin Mangal is a chartered accountant, who was a consultant with Defendant No.1- M/s Veritas Investment, and is the co-author of the Report - Bilking India. For the sake of convenience, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are together referred to as “Veritas”, except when specifically mentioned by name.

4. M/S Veritas Investment is engaged in the business of publishing reports in respect of equities, stocks, etc. It published a report dated 1st August, 2012 titled “Bilking India” on 8 th August, 2012. The said report was circulated to all of Veritas's clients, in India and abroad. In the said report, it claimed to have made an analysis of various companies of the Indiabulls group. As per Indiabulls, prior to the publication of the Report, some contact was established between Veritas and Indiabulls, wherein a monetary demand was made by Veritas's employees as consideration for not publishing the Report. However, when the demand did not fructify, the Report was released for publication by Veritas. These allegations are denied by Veritas, which also denies the emails relied upon by Indiabulls. This Court, however, is not concerned with the correspondence exchanged between the parties, owing to the limited nature of the present two suits. Immediately upon publication of the report, Indiabulls claimed that its share prices fell sharply in the stock market and two criminal complaints were filed by Indiabulls against Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in Gurgaon and in Mumbai. Mr. Nitin Mangal, Defendant No.3, had to repeatedly seek anticipatory bail before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court. He was however arrested and remained in custody for a few days. Thereafter, he was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court, Gurugram. However, the said complaints are still stated to be pending.

5. Simultaneously, with the publication of the Report i.e., on the same day, Indiabulls issued a press release dated 8th August, 2012 in which it made various allegations against Veritas. In view of the allegations made in the said press release, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 M/s Veritas Investment and Mr. Neeraj Monga, filed a suit bearing No.CV-14-509707 (hereinafter, “Canadian Suit”), before the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario, Canada (hereinafter, “Canadian Court”), seeking general and special damages for libel, conspiracy and economic harm, as also punitive and aggravated damages. The details of the said suit would be discussed a little later.

6. Indiabulls Real Estate Limited then filed the present suit being CS(OS) 2919/2014, seeking an anti-suit injunction in the following terms:

“(a) Permanently restraining the De