JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. Truth is considered to be the best vindication against slander as wisely quoted by Abraham Lincoln. Yet, truth lacks the potency to restore the reputation that one loses in eyes of a society which is always quick to judge. The disconsolate reality is that wealth lost can always be earned back; howbeit, the scar to one's repute once etched in the soul, yields nothing but forlorn even if millions are granted in reparation. Such is the predicament of the plaintiff who claims to have suffered from loss of reputation due to the reckless reporting by defendant Nos. 1 to 4, which has compelled him to file the present suit for damages to claim a compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as a bow to fate.

2. The plaintiff a General Officer in Army with record of impeccable integrity for 36 years was working as Addl. Director General, Ordnance Services (Technical Stores) in Army Head Quarters since 16th April, 1999 and was responsible for overseeing the functioning of Central Depots for Technical Stores, ammunition and procurement of indigenous equipment primarily for ex Directorate General Ordnance Factory and Public Sector Undertakings. The plaintiff has claimed that he was involved in the processing of cases for import of main equipment or the selection which is neither handled by Additional Director General, Weapons and Equipment (ADG WE) nor has he got any specialized knowledge or any role in the introduction and import of new equipment.

3. The defendant no.2, Tarun Tejpal, the proprietor of defendant no.1 portal Tehelka.Com was responsible for managing the release of news items/ articles on the website of Tehelka.Com. A media blitz was launched on 13.03.2001 carrying a story about the alleged corruption in the defence deals relating to import of new defence equipments. The story was done and recorded by two Reporters namely defendant Nos.3 and 4, allegedly working undercover by representing themselves on behalf of a fictitious defence equipment Firm based in London keen to introduce new defence equipments in the Indian Army. The defendant No.7, which is a news and entertainment channel available through Cable TV networks, allegedly telecasted selective video pictures of the Army officers, other civilian officers working in the Ministry of Defence and politicians allegedly involved in corruption in defence deals relating to the import of defence equipments along with selective transcript showing that all the persons referred above had taken money to do the work for the fictitious firm based in West End, London, which subsequently featured in various newspapers as well. It was shown that defendant No.3 and 4 using retired Defence Officers as middlemen approached serving Army Officers, civilians officers in the Ministry of Defence and politicians with the purpose to expose corruption in the import of defence equipments in the Indian Army. The conversations and the transcript of the conversations had been released selectively to highlight that the officers and politicians involved in the import of defence equipment and purchases were amenable to inducement, bribe and corruption to help the so called fictitious Firm in order to obtain the purchase orders and introduce them in the Indian Army.

4. One of the interstitial transcripts recorded in writing that a bribe of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff by defendant No.4 in the presence of Lt. Col. Sayal. The exact words were to the following effect:

"Our next meeting with Gen Ahluwalia takes place 10 days later. Here he accepts a token bribe of Rs. 50,000/- which is never delivered to him."

And it is further stated :

"Sayal goes near Ahluwalia and tried to hand Rs. 50,000/- which he accepts later."

5. It is submitted by the plaintiff that in the video tape as well as in the transcript, an impression has been created that the plaintiff had asked and demanded "Blue Label Whisky" and ten lakhs from defendant No.4 when he and Lt. Col. Sayal met the plaintiff a