Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Escorts Limited – Appellant
Versus
Tejpal Singh Sisodia – Respondent
Civil Suit (OS) No. 139 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2019
Territorial Jurisdiction - Defamation - Section 19 of the CPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a tractor manufacturer, filed a suit against the defendant for defamation and sought damages and injunctions. The defendant, a resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan, had allegedly defamed the plaintiff on Twitter, causing harm to its reputation and goodwill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's choice of filing the suit in Delhi, instead of Udaipur where the defendant resided and the alleged defamation occurred, was mala fide and an attempt to harass the defendant. The court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and rejected the plaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for defamation filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 19 of the CPC, which provides the plaintiff with the option to sue in the court where the wrong was done or where the defendant resides. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's claim of defamation across the globe did not confer jurisdiction on the court and that the plaintiff's choice of forum was mala fide.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaint, stating that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff was given the liberty to sue in a court with proper jurisdiction, but no costs were awarded.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
IA No. 3417/2019 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
IA No. 3416/2019 (u/s. 149 CPC)
3. Accepting the undertaking of the counsel for the plaintiff that the court fees shall be deposited within one week, the time for filing court fess is extended by one week.
4. The application is disposed of.
CS (OS) 139/2019, IA No. 3414/2019 (u/o. XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC) & IA No. 3415/2019 (u/o. II R.2(3) CPC)
5. The Registry to list the suit, if the deficient court fees is not filed within one week as undertaken.
6. The plaintiff having its registered office at Faridabad, Haryana has instituted this suit against the defendant resident of Udaipur, Rajasthan for (i) recovery of damages of Rs. 2,00,05,000/- for defaming the plaintiff; (ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant to take down/remove all tweets posted/published on Twitter or any other statement defamatory of the plaintiff, its affiliates and personnel etc. published at any place, forum or social media and (iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further defaming the plaintiff and/or from approaching the plaintiff or its management or employees or personnel or affiliates with intent to defame the plaintiff and disparaging the business of the plaintiff.
7. I have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, how this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
8. To appreciate the contentions of the counsel for the plaintiff, it is deemed appropriate to summarise the case of the plaintiff. It is the plea of the plaintiff in the plaint (a) that the plaintiff is carrying on business inter alia of manufacture of tractors; (b) that the defendant, vide application dated 8th December, 2005 approached the plaintiff seeking appointment as an authorised dealer of Farmtrac Tractors, accessories and spare parts, of the plaintiff, for Tehsil Nimbahera, Chotisadri, Barisadri and Dungla of District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan and a Letter of Intent dated 9th January, 2006 was issued by the plaintiff appointing the defendant, carrying on business in the name and style of "Geeta Tractors" as the General Sales and Services Dealer of the plaintiff for the aforesaid areas, on the terms and conditions contained therein; subsequently, a Dealer Sales Agreement dated 11th November, 2007 was also executed between the parties; (c) that the plaintiff supported the defendant to establish the said business and to serve the customers and provided various monetary incentives including the dealers incentive, salesman incentive, publicity charges, customer support discounts etc. to promote the business of the defendant; (d) that the defendant however had huge dues towards the plaintiff as well as towards the distributors and other creditors and defaulted in repaying outstanding dues and pursuant to which the distributors and dealers stopped supplying goods to the defendant resulting in the defendant not having sufficient inventory of goods to sell to the customers; (e) that the plaintiff thus called off its business arrangement with the defendant; (f) that post cessation of business dealings, the defendant started harassing the plaintiff and its management, by sending false legal notices with the intent to involve the plaintiff in its dispute with the distributors/dealers, the defendant, in the legal notices dated 4th July, 2013 and 14th August, 2013 made false allegations against the plaintiff and its management; (g) that though the plaintiff replied to the aforesaid legal notices but the defendant, in the year 2014 filed an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and pursuant whereto, FIR No. 85/2014 was lodged with the Police Station Govardhanvilas, Udaipur of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the plaintiff; (h) that the plaintiff participated in the investigation and police, being satisfied tha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
