SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1191

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
E. Eighteen.Com Ltd – Appellant
Versus
FITJEE Ltd – Respondent
FAO No. 31 of 2024, I.A.(Civil) No. 2175 of 2024
Decided on : 24-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Das, Senior Counsel, Mr. M. Sarma.
For the Respondent: Mr. U. Hazarika, Senior Counsel, Mr. J. Roy, Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Hazarika.

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Section 151 - Appeal against ex-parte interim order - The court upholds the interim injunction granted, restraining publication of disparaging materials against the plaintiff - The learned trial court found prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favor of plaintiff (Paras 9, 11, 12, 29).

(B) Defamation and Disparagement - Found that the publication of articles adversely impacted the plaintiff’s reputation and business, constituting grounds for mandatory injunction (Paras 19, 20, 24).

(C) Judicial Discretion - Appellate court will respect the trial court’s discretion unless exercised arbitrarily or capriciously (Paras 14, 26).

Facts of the case:
Respondent filed Title Suit against the appellants for defamation and disparagement, alleging that published articles harmed its reputation and financial stability due to malpractice allegations (Paras 5, 10).

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the articles published by appellants to be disparaging, justifying the injunctive relief granted (Paras 21, 29).

Issues: Whether the interim injunction was warranted based on established legal principles, including the triple test of granting injunctions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that ex-parte injunction is appropriate when there is a strong case of irreparable harm, aligning with principles set forth in precedent cases (Paras 10, 24).

Result: Appeal dismissed; interlocutory application to vacate the stay allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. U. Hazarika & Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. As agreed by learned counsel for both the parties, it is proposed to dispose of FAO No. 31/2024 along with the I.A.(C) No. 2175/2024, by this common judgment and order.

3. This appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), is directed against the impugned ex-parte interim order dated 19.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 362/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 204/2024.

4. It is to be noted here that vide impugned ex-parte interim order, dated 19.04.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had directed the opposite parties/defendants, their agents, representative, assigns or any other person related to them from posting, publishing or circulating any posts that amounts to disparagement of services of petitioner/plaintiff as well as immediately take down the impugned articles dated 12.03.2024, 14.03.2024 & 18.03.2024, or any other similar article or any other posts, write up or material concerning or in relation to these impugned articles against the petitioner till next date fixed.

Background Facts:-

5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

    “The respondent/opposite party as plaintiff has instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 204/2024, with a prayer for permanent and mandatory injuction and damages on account of defamation and disparagement, against the defendants, i.e. the present appellants. The contention of the respondent before the learned trial court is that it is a registered company which deal with imparting quality education in order to help students secure admissions in various premier institutes, like Indian Institute of Technology, across India especially for training students for competitive examinations and it has 78 numbers of centre all over India and also has centers in Doha and Bahrain, which has nearly sixty thousand students with approximately three thousand employees. It also provides online classes, test papers etc. for the students of Assam and North East at present. Whereas, the defendants/appellants deal with providing news in text and through video analysis, data and tools on investing across diverse asset classes, personal finance, the business sector and the economy as well as operate multiple social media pages being Facebook, LinkdIn, X (erstwhile Twitter) etc.

    The defendants/appellants had published series of articles dated 12.03.2024, 14.03.2024 & 18.03.2024. The respondent on 12.03.2024, received an email at 7:38 AM regarding an article to be published on appellant’s platform, titled:

    "FIITJEE holds employee salaries for second month in a row, calls it a 'wake-up call' to make them work harder."

    It is stated that appellant No.2, in the said email also requested for clarification on 13 points of queries by 10 A.M. on the same day, on the subject matter of the said mail. In the Article dated 12th March, 2024, the appellants also made a reference to respondent's competitors, such as Allen, Aakash, Physics Wallah and Unacademy referring to them as new- age edtech and use their names with # as "#Physics Wallah" and "#Unacademy, which gives an inference that these articles are motivated. Thereafter, on 14th March 2024, two more articles were published, intensifying the attack on them. The first, at 10:42 AM, questioned the salary issue, while the second, at 5:25 PM, criticized respondent's stance:- "Brazenly wrong! FIITJEE founder's 'salary is not a right' email not legally sound, say experts" And the second one published on 14th January, 2024 at 05.25 pm titled; "FIITJEE eS lSyjh ekaxuk xyr gS] QkamMj us,slk fn;k tokc fd deZpkjh deZpkfj;ks dk fny

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top