OD-13 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction C.S.No./49/2010 In G.A.No./2/2023 NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. AND ORS.

Before:

The Hont’hb le Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date: 02 AUGUST 2025 Appearance:

Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Aniket Agarwal, Adv.

Ms. Madhurima Halder, Adv.

Mr. B. Chakraborty, Adv.

…for ITC ltd.

Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Kr. Nag, Adv.

Mr. P. Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Y. Bhattacharyya, Adv.

…for defendants.

This application is filed by Defendant no-1 praying for the following reliefs:

The Court:

a) An order be passed directing the Registrar of Companies Kolkata, West Bengal to depute a competent officer for production of the original report of Mr. T.Pandian Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of Companies Kolkata, West Bengal dated 26th October 2009 to produce before this Hon’ble Court.

b) Alternatively an order directing issuance of Summons/Sub-poena through the concerned Department of this Hon’ble Court for production of the original report of Mr. T. Pandian, Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of Companies, West Bengal dated 26th October 2009 before this Hon’ble Court on such date as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

c) Ad interim order in terms of prayers above.

d) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the plaintiff.

e) Such further or other order or or2d ers and/or direction or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

The contention of the defendant/petitioner may be summed up thus;

1. After service of the summons in the suit the Defendants through their Advocate entered appearance and have filed a written statement. The primary defence as urged in the Written Statement is that the news published alleged to be defamatory reports the violation of various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 by the plaintiff based on Inspection Report of the Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of Companies Kolkata, West Bengal conducted in terms of the order/direction passed by the Ministry vide its letter No. 3/111/2007/CL.II dated 19/09/2007. According to the applicant as a News Channel the applicant is entitled to news item based on the said Inspection Report which is an available record pertaining to the case and therefore, question of defamation in any manner does not and cannot arise.

2. After considering the issue suggested by the parties by an Order dated 1st February 2023 the following issues were framed:-

A. Did the defendants cause publication of the said news programme on 9th and 10th February 2010 as pleaded in the plaint?

B. Were the statements made in the said news programme defamatory in nature as alleged in the plaint?

C. Is the defendant entitled to take the defence of fair comment and justification as alleged in written statement?

D. Did the defendants exercise due care and diligence in making the statements in the news programme?

E. Is the plaintiff entitled to any damages from the defendants or any of them?

F. To what relief (if any) is the pla3i ntiff entitled?

G. Whether the suit is maintainable?

H. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree against the defendant for publishing article?

3. As is evident from the issues framed one of the issues for adjudication is whether the statements made in the news programmes were defamatory in nature as has been alleged in the plaint. Similarly another issue for adjudication as to whether the defendant is entitled to take the defence of fair comment and justification as alleged in the written statement.

4. Pursuant to framing of ISSUES by Order dated 1st February 2023 plaintiff was permitted three weeks time to file Judges Brief of Documents, and the petitioner was granted opportunity to take inspection of the said document within one week and the suit was fixed for witness action on 2nd March

2023.

5. By Order dated 20th July 2023 the suit was fixed on 1st September 2023. In the meantime the petitioner proposing to disclose another document gave liberty to the plaintiff to take inspection of suc