Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, R. PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
K.T. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Hastun Agro Product Limited, Represented by its Managing Director R.G. Chandramogan & Others – Respondents
Original Side Appeal No. 318 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2019
Civil Procedure Code - Sections 500 and 108 - Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, - Pending disposal of suit - Permanent injunction restraining defendant - Making any statements or remarks or insinuations - Damages suffered by plaintiff as a direct consequence - Plaintiffs are private companies engaged in business of procurement and sale of milk in State of Tamil Nadu and in other parts of Country - Plaintiffs are leading private players in market and supplies more than half of entire share of milk and milk product required in State - Plaintiffs have engaged their men directly and indirectly and they put in use modern machineries to ensure efficient and hygiene conditions of products they deal with inter alia comply with requirements under applicable laws including Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Plaintiffs are fully aware of consequences of not adhering to hygienic standards which includes cancellation of license issued under Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992 – Held, Plaintiffs would harp upon by stating that by reason of statements made by defendant their business have come down and that they suffered loss - At same time as rightly pointed out by counsel for appellant/defendant even in plaint plaintiffs admitted that they have not furnished any statement indicating actual and exact loss suffered by them in their business – However plaintiffs would contend that any further statement if made by defendant would virtually affect their business – Thus anticipating that plaintiffs may suffer a loss in their business plaintiffs have sought to gag defendant - There is no imminent loss occasioned by plaintiffs and they themselves have admitted that they have not come forward with any specific statement with respect to loss of business suffered by them - At risk of repetition Court must hold that statements made by defendant cannot be said to be one pointed towards plaintiffs either directly or indirectly - Statements were made against private dairy players as a whole to which class plaintiffs also form - In such an event measuring actual loss suffered by plaintiffs is also impossible - Even otherwise plaintiffs have filed suit for damages and if they succeed in suit they can recover loss that had occasioned to them in their business - In a libel action it must be shown that imputation has in fact been made against a particular person and that such particular individual is capable of being identified - In such an action an order of injunction can be granted at interlocutory stage only if it is prima facie established that defamatory statements are made against a particular person who can very well be identifiable and that statements are only aimed and targeted against said particular person - However if a generic statement has been made not against any particular individual but against a class of person or persons who are to be identified or determined an injunction has to be refused leaving parties to prove veracity or correctness of those statements at time of trial in action for libel - Appeal is allowed
Key Points: - The court discusses interim injunction standards in a libel action and whether generic statements against a class can justify an injunction against a specific plaintiff (!) (!) (!) . - The case analyzes whether a minister’s public statements, made in discharge of official duties and in public interest, can be liable for damages to private dairies and how such statements are to be treated (general vs targeted) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment distinguishes between defamation of a class versus identifiable individuals and outlines when actions may lie or be barred, including reliance on tests from case law about referring to a class or to specific persons (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
(Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent 1865 and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of The Original Side Rules against the Order dated 20.10.2017 passed in O.A. No. 673 of 2017 in C.S. No. 529 of 2017 on the file of this Court.)
1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 20.10.2017 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in O.A. No. 673 of 2017 in C.S. No. 529 of 2017, whereby the appellant/defendant was restrained from making any statement or remarks, disparaging the applicants/respondents, or the products manufactured by them either in print or visual media, by making baseless accusations of adulteration against private dairies in Tamil Nadu as a whole, pending disposal of the suit.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondents in C.S. No. 529 of 2017. The suit was filed by the respondents for the following reliefs :-
(i) To direct the defendant to pay the first plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the defendant's statement made in TV channels and other medias against the first plaintiff's milk and milk products, together with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from this date till the date of realisation thereof;
(ii) To direct the defendant to pay the second plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the defendant's statement made in TV channels and other medias against the first plaintiff's milk and milk products, together with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from this date till the date of realisation thereof;
(iii) To direct the defendant to pay the third plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages suffered by the plaintiff as a direct consequence of the defendant's statement made in TV channels and other medias against the first plaintiff's milk and milk products, together with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from this date till the date of realisation thereof;
(iv) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any statements or remarks or insinuations directly disparaging the plaintiff's milk and/or milk products manufactured and marketed by them, to the media, both print and visual including any other mode of mass communication or social media or indirectly by making denigrating and baseless accusations of adulteration against private dairies in Tamilnadu, as a whole
(v) Direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit;
(vi) and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper and thus render justice.”
3. For the sake of easy reference, the appellant in this appeal is referred as 'defendant' and the respondents are referred as 'plaintiffs', as per their litigative status in the suit.
4. The Plaint averments can succinctly be stated as under:-
(I) The Plaintiffs are private companies engaged in the business of procurement and sale of milk in the State of Tamil Nadu and in other parts of the Country. The plaintiffs are the leading private players in the market and supplies more than half of the entire share of milk and milk product required in the State. The plaintiffs have engaged their men directly and indirectly and they put in use modern machineries to ensure efficient and hygiene conditions of the products they deal with inter alia comply with the requirements under the applicable laws including Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The plaintiffs are fully aware of the consequences of not adhering to hygienic standards which includes cancellation of the license issued under the Milk and Milk Product Order, 1992. According to the plaintiffs, over the years, the plaintiffs in particular and most of the private dairies in general have faced unnecessary policing through needless intervention and disruption by officials of Dairy Development Department. According to the plaintiffs, the perceived threat to Aavin Milk and Milk Products from private dairies
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
