Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 424
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
MR PAVANJIT KOROTANIA – Appellant
Versus
MR AMIT JATANA – Respondent
CS(OS) 513/2024
MANORANJAN KUMAR
The court established that prima facie evidence of defamation exists, warranting a restraint order to protect the plaintiff's reputation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 - Defamation - Plaintiff, an Administrative Officer, alleges defamatory statements made by the defendant in an email to higher authorities, claiming reputational harm - Court finds prima facie merit in the allegations and issues a restraint order against the defendant from further communications. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(B) Defamation - Elements of defamation include the publication of false statements that harm a person's reputation - The court emphasizes the need for a balance of convenience in granting interim relief to prevent reputational injury. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, employed at the Embassy of the Republic of Croatia, claims that the defendant, a businessman, sent an email containing derogatory remarks about him to higher authorities, alleging involvement in criminal activities. The plaintiff has a clean police record and argues that the email is defamatory. (Paras 10-19)
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the email contains defamatory allegations and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendant is allowed to continue sending such communications. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issues addressed include whether the email constitutes defamation and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a restraint order against the defendant. (Paras 20, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prima facie evidence of defamation exists, and the balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, warranting a restraint order to protect his reputation. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: The defendant is restrained from sending further emails to higher authorities regarding the plaintiff until the next hearing.
CS(OS) 513/2024 1.The plaint be registered as a suit. 2.On filing of process fee, summons be issued to the defendant by all permissible modes including through e-mail.
3.The summons shall indicate that written statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
4.The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
5.It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
6.Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
7.List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking exhibits on 04.09.2024. 8.List before the Court after completion of pleadings. I.A. 32155/2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC 9.Issue notice to the defendant. Notice be served by all permissible modes including e-mail.
10.Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is working as an Administrative Officer in the Embassy of Republic of Croatia since December 2003. He submits that plaintiff has given an honest service to the Embassy for the last 21 years and during his entire career no one has raised a single finger on his creditability and honesty till date.
11.He submits that plaintiff is a qualified Engineer and has completed his decree from a prestigious Delhi College of Engineering in the year 1998. He further submits that late father of plaintiff was working as Deputy Director-General, Department of Tourism and he had also carried a great reputation and name in the department, as well as, in the society. Likewise, the plaintiff also possesses strong moral and ethical values and in his entire professional life he has earned strong reputation as a man of morals.
12.He submits that the plaintiff is working as an Administrative Officer attached to the Ambassador and he is at the disposal of his boss and his job is as per the instructions of the Ambassador.
13.He submits that the defendant is a businessman running a travel agency by the name of M/s Travelicious Holidays Private Limited Pvt. having its registered address at 4/1, Second Floor, Plot No. 5, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi -110008.
14.He submits that the plaintiff was shocked to see a copy of e- mail dated 18.06.2024 sent by the defendant to the Cabinet Minister and other higher authorities in Zagreb wherein the plaintiff has been shown in bad light and derogatory remarks have been made against him.
15.He invites the attention of the Court to the said mail which has been filed along with the plaint. The name of the plaintiff has specifically been mentioned in the e-mail and it has been alleged that the plaintiff and his associates are running a nexus of VISA for money. It is also alleged that the staff working in the Embassy are very serious criminals who are taking advantage of innocent diplomats.
16.He submits that since the year 2016, the Embassy of Republic of Croatia has delegated VFS global; the job of receiving the VISA documents, application and process fees on which the Embassy has no interference.
17.Learned counsel for the plaintiff also invites the attention of the Court to the Police Clearance Certificate filed along with plaint wherein it has been recorded that the plaintiff has not been found involved in any criminal offence as per crime record office at the concerned police station till date.
18.He submits that the Police Clearance Certificate has to be submitted by each employee of the Embassy at regular intervals.
19.The learned counsel
