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
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 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
Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors reported in (1995) 3 SCC 33
General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr
K. Jayaram & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authorities & Ors
Ramjas Foundation & Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38
Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das
Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare [(1975) 1 SCC 559]
Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253(2) : 63 IA 372 : 37 Cri LJ 897]
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 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.
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....
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
Injunction – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts.
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.