IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J.
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited - Respondent
FAO 79 of 2024, CM APPL. 14346 of 2024 (stay)
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Defamation - Media Publication - Companies Act, 1956 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, media companies, published an article about the respondent, a media and entertainment company, which the respondent alleged to be defamatory. The respondent sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants, which was granted by the learned ADJ. The appellants appealed the decision, arguing that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity to rebut the respondent's contentions and that the suit was an attempt to silence their right to free and fair speech.
Finding of the Court:
The learned ADJ found the article to be defamatory and granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the respondent. The court considered the impact of the article on the respondent's reputation and economic standing, and found that the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions was satisfied.
Issues: The main issue was whether the article published by the appellants was defamatory and whether the ex-parte ad-interim injunction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions and found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the injunction. The court also noted that the appellants had not explored the option of filing a reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the ex-parte ad-interim order.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the learned ADJ is yet to decide.
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the order 01.03.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "ADJ") in CS DJ 137/2024 titled as "Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." whereby an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in an application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was granted, resultantly directing appellants herein to take down from their website an Article dated 21.02.2024 within one week of the receipt of the impugned order.
Factual Matrix
2. The appellants. contend that appellant nos.1 & 2 are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and operate and function as a media publication under the name of "Bloomberg". The appellant company enjoys an untarnished and unblemished reputation and goodwill in the eyes of public at large owing to their high standards of ethics, integrity and diligence in reporting. The appellant no.3 is the Editor, South Asia and Middle East, of the appellant no.1 company and the appellants. no.4 & 5 are journalists of the appellant no.1 company. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged inter alia in the business of media and entertainment.
3. Insofar as the relevant facts pertaining to the present appeal are concerned, on 21.02.2024, an Article titled as "India Regulator Uncovers
241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee" was published on the website of the appellants. no.1 & 2. It is contended by appellants that Article was based on proper research and after confirmation of the contents thereunder from reliable resources. The appellants further contend that they had also approached the respondent seeking quotes on the subject to which the respondent had replied and the communication exchanged has been filed by the respondent in the Suit, which is a testament to the fact that the appellants had approached the respondent to maintain the standards of integrity and fair speech. Further, it is contended that the contents of the Article are not a matter of the opinion of the appellants and reflects the higher standards of ethics, journalism and professional etiquettes employed by the appellants in preparing and / or publishing the Article in question. According to the appellants, they have displayed honest journalism as their endeavour had been to publish factually correct Articles, which may be an irritant for some. The said Article talks about the status of the Zee-Sony merger as well as an ongoing investigation carried out by the the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI") qua the Respondent.
4. However, aggrieved by the Article, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction bearing CS DJ 137/2024 before the Court of learned ADJ and sought the following relief:
"A. decree of declaration that the contents of the Defamatory Article [as defined hereinabove] authored by Defendant Nos. 3-5 and published by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in the present Suit are defamatory to the Plaintiff;
B. A decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants to remove the Defamatory Article [as defined hereinabove] from their Website [as defined hereinabove];
C. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and / or their associates, affiliates, servants, agents, directors, partners, employees, representatives, and all other persons acting for and on their behalf from uploading/ distributing/ sharing and/ or circulating the Defamatory Articles in any manner whatsoever;
D. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from making any further unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex facie defamatory statements in any form, i.e., an article, video, tweet or otherwise, concerning t
Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Anr. vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S Chellapan.
Acharya Arjun Dev vs State & Anr.
Kanti Bhadra Shah And Another Vs State of W.B.
Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Anr vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited.
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn Ltd. Vs SEBI
Sidhartha Vashisht vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah
Seema Arshad Zaheer v. MC of Greater Mumbai
Acharya Arjun Dev vs State & Anr" 2005 (2) JCC 897
A Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs S Chellapan" (2000) 7 SCC 695
Kanti Bhadra Shah And Another Vs State of W.B" (2000) 1 SCC 722
Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph
R. Rajagopal vs. State of TN" 1994 6 SCC 632
Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Anr. vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited" 2023 (1) SCC 634
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn Ltd. Vs SEBI" (2012) 10 SCC 603
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah
The court applied the 'Triple Test' for grant of injunctions and found that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for the injunction.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
Appellate courts should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Procedural defe....
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
The failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
(1) An ad interim injunction shall not be granted in derogation of right of opposite party.(2) An order passed without issuing notice to opposite party cannot be brought under purview of Section 36 C....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.