The main legal point established is that while the defense of justification requires evidence and should be determined at trial, the use of strong and offensive words in a defamatory context can impact reputation and warrant interim relief.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. - LA. 16137/2021 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC for interim relief)

1. This order will dispose of I.A No. 16173/2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' in short) filed by the plaintiff for interim relief. 2. I have heard the submissions of Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the defendant No. 1, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for the defendant No. 2 and Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant No. 9 and considered the material on record and the cited case laws.

3. The plaintiff describes itself as a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, constituted in the year 1992 for the purpose of imparting quality education to students so that they gain adequate skills to secure admission to various premier educational institutions in the country such as the Indian Institute of Technology. It claims to have developed a unique method of teaching and formulating various programs, which ensures a high rate of success amongst its pupils in gaining admission to these premier institutions of higher education. Over a period of time, on account of hard work put in by the teachers at its 80 centers spread across the country, it has been declared to be India's number one coaching institute for Engineering Entrance Examinations in 2019.

4. The grievance that has led to the filing of the present suit is a video that has been uploaded on You Tube by the defendant No. 2, which according to the plaintiff contained falsities. The defendant no.2 is seen in the video (the transcripts have been placed at pages 26-64 of the plaintiff's documents) introducing the topic as akin to the battle between 'Sri Ram' and 'Ravan', certainly suggesting that the plaintiff was in the position of 'Ravan', by not heeding to the warnings of defendant No. 1 on previous occasions, to refrain from disparaging it and thus inviting upon itself the strong rebuttal by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has been painted in a completely negative light by the use of such metaphors. Words such as 'gumrah' have been used against the plaintiff, the public is told that the plaintiff misled the parents, held the parents and children hostages, was focused only on making money, indulged in kidnapping and extortion, while at the same time ill-treating its teachers by not paying salaries and so on. There is also a comment on the refund policy of the plaintiff and other malpractices have been alleged. It is also claimed that there is a Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' in short) case against the plaintiff.

5. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the intent of the video was retribution borne out of malice. It was explained that it was fair practice in the industry for institutions to issue advertisements where a comparative performance is published. Since the comparison in the advertisement issued by the plaintiff (page no. 27 of the plaintiff's document) was not complimentary to the defendants, therefore, the offending video was uploaded by the defendant no.2. Assuming that the plaintiff's advertisement had caused discomfort to the defendants, they could have sought remedy against the plaintiff but it did not give them license to defame and abuse the plaintiff.

6. It was submitted that no CBI case was pending nor has the plaintiff been summoned by the CBI for investigation ever. Even as per the documents filed by the defendants (i.e. Document no.1), a complaint seems to have been filed and the Human Resource Development Minister had only assured that the matter would follow its own course. That would not mean that a CBI case has been registered or investigation was going on. Further, by relying on videos that showed a disgruntled teacher, whose services stood terminated and against whom the High Court had issued an injunction and in respect of which the teacher was in contempt, the claim h