Defamatory statements without evidence cause harm to reputation; use of derogatory terms in grievance letters constitutes defamation.

The plaint case in nutshell is that the Plaintiffs are companies registered under Companies Act 1956. The Plaintiffs as members of a consortium lead by the Plaintiff No.1 have acquired goodwill and reputation as promoters and developers. They have completed various projects in or around the city of Kolkata. For the purpose of developing and promoting a housing project the Plaintiffs acquired along with its associated group of companies, ownership and possession of premises no. 7D/1, 7D/2 and 7D/3, Anil Moitra Sarani, Kolkata in terms of registered deed of P a g e | 2 conveyances. Names of the Plaintiffs were also mutated as co-owners of the said premises in the records of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Sanctioned plans were also obtained from Kolkata Municipal Corporation for construction of building.

It is averred in the plaint that the Defendants with intent to affect the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs sent a letter dated 21/05/2007 to the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation with copies to various other authorities and also circulated the letter to the members of public as well as to the intending buyers of the flats. The Defendants intended to injure reputation and business goodwill of the Plaintiffs, to expose the Plaintiffs to contempt and public ridicule and to lower the estimation of the Plaintiffs. On being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs instituted the instant suit praying for decree of Rs.50,000,000/- as damages for defamation alternatively to make an enquiry to assess damage suffered;

decree for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing/causing to be published/circulating any defamatory words along with other reliefs.

The Defendants appeared in the suit and contested the same by filling written statement denying all allegations. Apart from challenging the jurisdiction of this Court, the Defendants raised pleas that the Plaintiffs, in attempt to start business, tried to evict all the occupiers in order to construct a multi-storied building. The Plaintiffs also tried to evict the Defendants illegally. In order to prevent illegal activities of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants issued the letter to Kolkata Municipal Corporation with object that necessary steps may be taken by the Corporation. Again, one of the Defendants Susovan Banerjee wrote a letter to Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 24/02/2007 to initiate immediate action against the Plaintiffs. But Kolkata Municipal Corporation did not take any step. As a result, the Defendants P a g e | 3 were constrained to file a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 10th Court, Alipore which was registered as Title Suit No.26 of 2006. In spite of that the Plaintiffs continued their, illegal activities. It is further averred that the Defendants had no intention to injure the reputation or business goodwill of the Plaintiffs; the letter dated 21/05/2007 has been misconstrued. Nowhere in the letter any direct remark was made. The letter was not circulated among the members of public but were addressed to the authorities only. Even assuming but not admitting that the statements, as have been alleged to be defamatory, there must be in fact an interest or duty in the person to whom the libel is published. The principle is that, as averred in the written statement, either must be interest in the recipient and a duty to protect it in the recipient. Such communications are protected from the common convenience and welfare of the society. Circumstances were such that the Defendants were under duty of making communication to third person who had a corresponding interest in receiving it. The Defendants had an interest to protect and the third persons had a duty to protect interest. Acco