Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 36
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Judge, J
ESBI HI-Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. Vulkan Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
C.S. No. 179 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not specifically listed
For the Respondents: Not specifically listed
Defamatory statements made in business contexts can lead to damages without proving special damages.
Headnote:Under the law of defamation, the statements made by the defendant referring to the plaintiffs as 'spurious manufacturer' are deemed defamatory per se. The e-mail communication was reviewed, and the court determined that the remarks resulted in reputational harm to the plaintiffs, justifying their claim for general damages without the need for special damages. The court concluded that compensation of 50,000 Euros was fair and reasonable, alongside assessing litigation costs totaling Rs. 1,00,000. The final ruling affirms the plaintiffs' entitlement to damages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs claim damages for defamatory statements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant denies allegations and claims justified statements. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. plaintiffs argue the words are defamatory per se. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. defendant's reliance on justification and context discussed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's consideration of meaning of 'spurious' established. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. court affirms the defamatory nature of statements. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. quantum of damages assessed with consideration of past hostilities. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. final ruling on compensation and court costs issued. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
1. The plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged defamatory statement made by the defendant.
2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a manufacturer of couplings. The plaintiff No. 2 is its associate engaged in the business of export of products manufactured by the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 is a member of the Engineering Export Promotion Council. Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV) is an authorised certified classification agency. DNV has inspected and certified couplings manufactured by the plaintiff No. 1.
3. According to the plaintiffs, they received an information by electronic mail (e - mail) from DNV on July 10, 2008 that the defendant who is a business rival of the plaintiffs, had complained about a coupling of the plaintiff No. 1 by an e - mail dated July 9, 2008 to DNV. DNV had forwarded the e - mail dated July 9, 2008 of the defendant to the plaintiffs on July 10, 2008. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had used the words 'spurious manufacturer' to describe the plaintiffs. Such words in the context of the entire e - mail are defamatory. The plaintiffs having being defamed by such words, they seek damages.
4. The defendant has filed a written statement. The defendant has denied the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs on one hand and the parent foreign company of the defendant and the defendant on the other hand, had disputes with regard to a trademark. Such disputes had been settled and a global settlement had been entered into between the parties and filed in a Court at Singapore. Such global settlement has since been acted upon. The plaintiffs do not have right to use the name 'Vulkan' or the Codes bearing EZ, EZS and EZR. The defendant having found the plaintiffs to market products subsequent to the global settlement with the Code EZ, which according to the defendant gives an impression that such product has been manufactured by the defendant, it had issued the e - mail dated July 9, 2008 to DNV protesting against the action of DNV in granting a certificate to the plaintiffs for such products. Such e - mail was a confidential communication and in the nature of a complaint made by the defendant to DNV which is an authority. The defendant claims that every statement made in the e - mail dated on July 9, 2008 are true. The words 'spurious manufacturer' have been rightly use to indicate that the plaintiffs have been trying to deceptively suggest that the products of the plaintiffs were those manufactured by the defendant and / or its parent company.
5. Four issues have been settled by the Order dated November 28, 2011 in the suit. Such issues are as follows: -
1. Is the word 'Spurious' in relation to plaintiffs' products defamatory per se?
2. Did the plaintiffs suffer loss and damage of their business and reputation for the alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant?
3. Are the plaintiffs entitled to damages as claimed?
4. What other relief the plaintiffs are entitled?
6. The plaintiffs have adduced only one witness in support of their case.
7. The defendant did not produce any witness.
8. None of the parties at the hearing has addressed the Court issue wise.
9. On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that, the words 'spurious manufacturer' are defamatory on their own as also wh
