IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Thiruvarur Vaidyanathan – Appellant
Versus
N. Murali & Others – Respondents
O.A. 122 of 2020 in C.S. No. 78 of 2020
Decided on : 01-09-2020
Defamation - Mridangam Accompanist - Order XIV Rule 8, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC - [State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta etc, AIR 1952 SC 12, 1951 (2) MLJ 645], [1914 ILR (Bombay) 381 - Rasul Karim and another Vs. Pirubhai Amirbhai], [Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Sriman Narayan and another], [AIR 1993 SC 276 - Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others]
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a renowned Mridangam Vidwan, sought an ad-interim mandatory injunction to be included as an accompanist for a music festival after being excluded due to defamatory allegations made by a vocalist. The respondents contended that the selection process had concluded and that the Academy had zero tolerance for allegations of sexual harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought in the interlocutory application exceeded the scope of the main relief claimed in the suit. The court also noted that the Academy, which conducted the music season, was not a party to the case. Therefore, the application for an injunction was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were the exclusion of the applicant from the music festival due to defamatory allegations and the appropriateness of seeking an ad-interim mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an interim relief should be ancillary to the main relief sought in the suit. As the relief sought in the interlocutory application exceeded the scope of the main relief and the Academy was not a party to the case, the application for an injunction was dismissed.
Final Decision: The application for an ad-interim mandatory injunction was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Judge’s Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC to pass an order of ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendant’s herein to include the name of the petitioner/plaintiff as Mridangam accompanist, for the forthcoming Annual Conference and Concerts, December 2020 Music Festival conducted by the Music Academy Madras.)
1. The above application is filed for an ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to include the name of the petitioner/plaintiff as a Mridangam accompanist for the forthcoming Annual Conference and Concerts December 2020, the music festival conducted by the Music Academy, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Academy and pass such other orders. The applicant herein had filed the suit C.S.No.78 of 2020 seeking, the following reliefs:
b. Direct the defendants to recall, the contents of the letter dated 21.10.2018, the interview of Pudhiya Thalaimurai Tamil Media TV Channel, the interview to the Hindu and the Times of India Newspapers, the interview to Behindwoods Internet Channel.
c. Direct the defendants to issue an unconditional apology with retracting statements in the said Media.
2. The applicant has knocked the doors of this Court with the following case. He would submit that he is a renowned Mridangam Vidwan who was an accompanist for several renowned Carnatic vocalist and musicians. He would state that he has played for Late. Smt.M.L.Vasanthaumari, Late. Smt.D.K.Pattammal, Late. Flute Ramani, Late. Shri.K.V.Narayanasamy, Late. Dr.M.Balamurali Krishna, Late. Shri.Maharajapuram Santhanam, Late. Shri. Mandolin Srinivas, Shri. T.N.Krishnan, Shri. T.V.Sankaranayanan, Smt.Aruna Sairam, Shri. K.J.Yesudas, Smt.Sudha Raghunathan, Shri.Ravikiran to name but a few.
3. The applicant has also listed out the various awards that he has been conferred with. The applicant would also state that he had the honour of playing the Mridangam in Jugalbandi Concerts with legends such as Shri.Pandit Bhimsen Joshi, Shri.Ajay Chakraborty, Shri. Pandit Sahit Parvesh, Shri. Rakesh Chaurasia and Shri. Pandit Debashish Battacharya. He would state that he is well renowned not only in the Carnatic field but also in Hindustani Music Circles.
4. While so, one Chinmayi Sripada, Vocalist and Playback Singer had made a defamatory statement in her Twitter page alleging that the applicant was guilty of sexual harassment of young girls. On the basis of this irresponsible and defamatory statement the applicant who was already slotted to play in the December 2018 Music Season the Academy, was informed that in the light of the allegations the Academy had decided not to feature him in the Concerts scheduled for December 2018. The letter dated 21.10.2018 was received from the 1st and 2nd respondents representing the Academy. On account of this action the applicant had suffered immense mental agony and fall of face amongst the public.
5. That apart the 1st respondent had given an interview to the Tamil Channel, Puthiya Thalaimurai which was aired on 25.10.2018. Apart from that, statements were also given to the print media. This act of the respondents is a deliberate act of defamation since the allegation that was made in the Twitter page of the said Chinmayi Sripada was not followed up with any formal complaint and the same remained only an allegation.
6. The applicant would further submit that after he had been unceremoniously removed from performing at the Academy he had received the prestigious “Sangeet Natak” Academy award from none less than the President of India. He has also received the “Kalaimaamani” award from the Government of Tamil Nadu on 13.08.2019. The applicant would further submit that despite the fac
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.