Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
M/s. Menaka & Co., (Paver Finishing Road Contractors), Rep. by its Managing Partner, M. Mahesh & Others - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Arappor Iyakkam, Rep by its Convener, Jayaram Venkatesan & Another - Respondents
Original Application Nos. 18, 25, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44, 152, 204 & 275 of 2019 in CS Nos. 21, 29, 42, 44, 45, 40, 41, 136, 163 & 199 of 2019 & Application No. 1663 of 2019
Decided On : 03-06-2019
For the Petitioner:S. Doraisamy, A. Sathiyamurthi, T.R. Rajagopalan, SC for M/s. V. Elangovan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Dr. V. Suresh, R.S. Akila, Advocates.
Pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases should only be granted in rare cases where it is clear that all defenses will fail. The right to freedom of speech and expression must be balanced with the right to protect one's reputation. The defense of justification can be raised to counter allegations of defamation.
Headnote:
N/A
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed applications seeking injunctions to restrain the respondents from making defamatory statements against them in the print and electronic media. The respondents alleged corruption and collusion in the awarding of government contracts. The applicants claimed that the allegations were false and unsubstantiated, while the respondents argued that they were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression. The court considered the principles of pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases and concluded that the applicants had not established a prima facie case for injunction. The court also noted that the respondents had raised a defense of justification and produced materials that suggested the allegations were not entirely false. The applications for injunction were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the law relating to pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases and considered the balance between the right to freedom of speech and the right to protect one's reputation. The court concluded that pre-trial injunctions should only be granted in rare cases where it is clear that all defenses will fail. The court found that the applicants had not shown that the allegations were entirely false and that the respondents had raised a defense of justification. Therefore, the court dismissed the applications for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: Pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases should only be granted in rare cases where it is clear that all defenses will fail. The right to freedom of speech and expression must be balanced with the right to protect one's reputation. The defense of justification can be raised to counter allegations of defamation.
Result: The applications for injunction were dismissed.
(Prayer: Original Applications are filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to
OA Nos.18, 25, 40, 41, 42, 43, 152 of 2019
(i) grant an order of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants their men and agents from in any manner, holding any press meet, releasing or distributing any statement to the Print and Electronic Media or to any one against the applicant/plaintiff and its business imputing the character or insinuating the reputation or linking the name of the applicant/plaintiff with any persons or defaming the name of the applicant/plaintiff in any manner, pending disposal of the above suit.
OA No.204 of 2019
(i) grant an order of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants and their men and agents or any other persons claiming through them, from in any manner, publishing any further defamatory articles, statements, photos or caricatures imputing the character or insinuating the reputation or linking the name of the applicant with any person or defaming the name of the applicant and in any manner by holding any press meet, releasing or distributing any statement to the Print and Electronic Media or unloading any messages, videos, into Face book, twitter, Whatsapp and other websites and all other forms of online videos/messages pending disposal of the above suit.
OA No.275 of 2019
(i) Pleased to interim injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents or servants from in any manner, holding any press meet, releasing or distributing any statement to the print and Electronic Media or to any one as against the Plaintiff and its business which would be damaging the character of the Plaintiff as a firm or the persons who are in charge of the affairs of the plaintiff, pending disposal of the suit.
A No.1663 of 2019
(i) Pleased to pass an order of interim direction directing the respondents/defendants and their men and agents or any other persons claiming through them immediately remove all the defamatory uploaded messages, videos, from Fact book, twitter, Whatsapp, Websites and all other forms and online videos/messages linking the applicant’s name in any form with anybody, pending disposal of the suit.)
1. All these Original Applications have been filed seeking identical orders of injunction restraining the respondents from holding any press meet, releasing or distributing any statement to the Print and/or Electronic Media or to any one against the applicants/plaintiffs and the business carried on by them imputing the character or insinuating the reputation or linking the name of the applicants/plaintiffs with any person/persons or defaming the name of the applicants/plaintiffs in any manner pending disposal of the respective suits.
2. The Suit in CS No.163 of 2019 has been filed by one Thiru. S.P. Velumani, a Minister seeking damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,01,000/-, as compensation for the loss of reputation suffered by him due to the sustained false propaganda carried out by the respondents/defendants against him. The other Suits have been filed by independent Contractors, who are engaged in carrying out contract works awarded to them by the various Municipal Corporations in the State claiming damages for the alleged acts of defamation.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the respondents are indulging in a smear campaign against them with a sole object of defaming them and causing loss of reputation. While, it is claimed by the plaintiff in CS No.163 of 2019 that the respondents are linking his name with various Contractors claiming that they are either his henchmen or benamies and he along with the said contractors have been indulging in acts of corruption, thereby causing loss to the ex-chequer, it is the case of the Contractors/plaintiffs in other suits that they have nothing to do with the plaintiff in CS No.163 of 2019. They are doing business as reputed contractors doing Government works
