The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J.

IA Nos. 1259/2017, 3239/2017, 5230/2017 & 9281/2017

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. Permanent injunction is also sought to restrain the defendants from directly or indirectly publishing, commenting, communicating or issuing any article, etc. in any manner whatsoever referring to the allegations, details of which are set out in the plaint. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

2. This matter came up for hearing on 15.03.2017 when notice was issued to the defendants. On 18.04.2017, this court restrained the defendants from, in any manner, directly or indirectly publishing and/or commenting and/or communicating and/or issuing any article, interview and material to the public in any manner whatsoever, containing or referring to the allegations contained in the posts being the subject matter of the suit. Subsequently, on 28.04.2017 this court impleaded defendants No. 13 to 18 and permitted amendment to the plaint. The interim order was extended to the newly impleaded defendants.

3. IA No. 3239/2017 is filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for injunction. Similarly, IA No. 5230/2017 is also filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim orders against the newly impleaded defendants No. 13 to 19. IA No. 9281/2017 is filed by defendants No. 17 and 18 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim injunctions. IA No.1259/2017 is filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by defendants No. 13 and 14 for vacation of the injunctions. I will now decide these applications.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that he claims to be India's well known and leading venture capitalist and managing partner of a leading venture capital firm called Seedfund. The plaintiff is also said to be a Managing Director of a leading digital brand management firm called Pinstorm. The plaintiff claims to enjoy an excellent reputation and tremendous goodwill both in India as well as internationally.

5. The entire case centres around alleged defamatory publications done by defendants No. 1 & 2 and defendants No. 15 & 16 which have been in some manner or the other forwarded, reproduced or further propagated by the other defendants in the form of various communications. The plaint gives a long narration of publications by various defendants/the acts of various defendants. I may refer to some of the salient contentions.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that due to the nature of the plaintiff's work as a venture capitalist, he receives business proposals from various people on a daily basis. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had also got in touch with the plaintiff for seeking advice and help with regard to their prospective start-up business plans/ideas. The plaintiff has never met defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2. It is stated that the plaintiff did not express any interest in the business plans/ideas provided by defendants No. 1 and 2. It is claimed that defendants No. 1 and 2 were disgruntled with the plaintiff for rejecting their business proposals pursuant to which the defendants took steps of publishing the defamatory posts. It is stated that for the first time, the plaintiff was victimized by a resentful woman entrepreneur in 2007, named, Seema Pagey.

7. It is claimed that defendants No. 1 and 2 have uploaded certain defamatory content pertaining to the plaintiff on the website www.LinkedIn.com and www.indian ceo.in respectively which gives rise to the reliefs which have been sought by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 uploaded a post on the said website www.LinkedIn.com (hereinafter referred to as `LinkedIn'