Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2782
2012 (4) CTC 361
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. JYOTHIMANI & M. DURAISWAMY
K.S. Sundaram
Versus
S. Viswanathan & Another
O.S.A.No.181 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on : 04-07-2012
For the Appellant:Ravi for M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:C. Ramakrishna for M/s. Surana & Surana, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the publication of articles can constitute fair comments made in the public interest and may not amount to libel, especially when there is no proof of malice or personal animus.
Headnote:
Libel - Defamation - Fair Comment - 1910 ILR 37 CAL 760, AIR 1965 SC 1451, AIR 1982 KERALA 95, 2011(1) WLR 1985, 1909 ILR 36 CAL 1883 - The judgment discusses the publication of articles by the defendants and whether they amount to libel or constitute fair comments. The court analyzes the content of the articles and the evidence presented by both parties to determine if the articles were defamatory or made in the public interest. The court concludes that the articles were fair comments on the performance of the company and dismisses the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming damages and permanent injunction against the defendants for publishing allegedly defamatory articles about the plaintiff and his family in a business magazine. The defendants claimed that the articles were fair comments on the poor performance of the plaintiff's company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the articles published by the defendants were fair comments on the performance of the company and did not amount to libel. The court dismissed the suit.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the articles published by the defendants constituted libel or fair comments, and whether the plaintiff had proven that the articles were defamatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the articles were fair comments made in the public interest and did not constitute libel. The court also emphasized the importance of proving malice and establishing a personal animus in defamation cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the articles published by the defendants were fair comments on the performance of the company and did not amount to libel.
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
1. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge made in C.S.No.157 of 2001 on the file of this court the plaintiff has filed the above appeal. The respondents were the defendants in the suit.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.157 of 2001 for claiming damages of Rs.10,00,001/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from repeating or publishing further libel against the plaintiff.
3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
(i) According to the plaintiff, the second defendant is a publication said to be focussing on business and economics and the first defendant is the Editor of the second defendant; that in the issue for the period from 30.8.2000 to 14.9.2000, the first defendant falsely and maliciously printed and published about the plaintiff, his family and his profession. According to the plaintiff, the said article purporting to be a comment on the affairs of the company viz., M/s.Addisons Paints & Chemicals Limited, but, in substance it defamed the plaintiff and his family members and it had injured and lowered his reputation and the members of his family. On 29.9.2000, the plaintiff had sent a letter calling upon the defendants to publish the said letter, but there was no response. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice dated 3.11.2000 calling upon the defendants to tender unconditional apology for the defamatory allegations published in the edition for the period from 30.8.2000 to 14.9.2000 and also to publish the letter.
(ii) According to the plaintiff, the defendants had made further defamatory allegations against the plaintiff in the issue dated 3.11.2000 for which the plaintiff sent a rejoinder reiterating that the allegations made against the plaintiff are defamatory in nature. Further, according to the plaintiff, the intention of the defendants is not to make any fair comment on the performance of the company, but a deliberate attempt to injure the reputation of the plaintiff and his family members and the defendants are aware that the article would not only lower the esteem and reputation of the plaintiff among the general public, particularly, the people in the corporate sector, but also would cause anguish and mental suffering to him. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming for damages and for permanent injunction.
4. The brief case of the defendants are as follows:-
(i) According to the defendants, there is no cause of action for filing the suit; that the plaintiff failed to clarify as to which part of the article was defamatory or injured his reputation. Further, according to the defendants, the plaintiff had not objected as to what the defendants has stated in the article, but his grievance was that the comment ought to have been made against the Board of Directors.
(ii) According to the defendants, they never attacked the plaintiff personally or caused injury to him and that the said article is a fair comment on the poor performance of a 50 years old reputed company that pioneered the production of paints in the country. The said article was published only after thorough investigation made by the defendants. The said article did not attack the capacity or the character of the plaintiff and it only pointed to the management the lacunae that resulted in poor growth of M/s.Addisons Paints & Chemicals Limited and there was no malicious intention to publish the article. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. In the suit, on the side of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and 5 documents Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked and on the side of the defendants, first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and one S.Nagarajan was examined as D.W.2 and 10 documents Exs.D-1 to D-10 were marked.
6. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in C.S.No
