Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 21622
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J
ENGINEER.AI INDIA PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
IDEOPE MEDIA PVT LTD. – Respondent
CS(OS) 277/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Sibal, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Supriya Julka, Mr. Nikunj Mahajan, Mr. Vinamra Kapariha, Mr. Darpan Sachdeva
For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Singh, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Ms. Charu Modi, Mr. Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Pranav Sharma, Ms. Ritu Thakur, Mr. Akash Mishra
The court mandates modifications to a defamatory article to ensure fair representation of the plaintiffs' clarifications.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - The plaintiffs allege false publication by defendant No. 1 regarding criminal cases against co-founders of their company. The court orders modifications to the article's headline and summary to include plaintiffs' clarifications. (Paras 5-8)
(B) Right to respond - The plaintiffs were not given adequate opportunity to present their side, raising concerns of fair reporting. The court emphasizes the need for balanced journalism. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claim damages and injunction due to an article about alleged criminal cases against them. They argue the content is false and misleading. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The court orders the modification of the article's headline and summary to reflect the plaintiffs' clarifications, ensuring fair representation. (Paras 8)
Issues: The main issues include the truthfulness of the publication and the adequacy of the plaintiffs' opportunity to respond. (Paras 5-6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of fair reporting and the necessity for media to provide an opportunity for response in defamation cases. (Paras 6-8)
Result: The application stands disposed of with binding terms for both parties.
% 05.04.2024 I.A. 7732/2024 (for exemption) The application for exemption is allowed, subject to the plaintiffs granting inspection of the documents filed, as and when required to do so, or filing the original documents at the stage of admission/denial.
The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 7750/2024 (for extension of time for filing court fees) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the deficient court fees CS(OS) 277/2024 have been deposited.
Subject to compliance with requisite formalities within one week from today, the application is allowed.
CS(OS) 277/2024
1. The plaint be registered as a suit. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel, waives formal service of summons on behalf of defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (John Doe and Ashok Kumar) are unidentified defendants. Summons upon defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with.
2. Written statement may be filed by defendant No. 1 within thirty days from today.
2. Defendant No. 1 shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
3. Plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by defendant No. 1, failing which the replications shall not be taken on record.
4. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
5. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
6. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings, marking of exhibits and admission/denial of documents on 16.05.2024.
7. List before the Court on 23.07.2024. CS(OS) 277/2024 I.A. 7731/2024 (for ad-interim ex-parte relief)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of defendant No. 1. Service upon Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, being unidentified, is not necessary.
2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for damages and injunction arising out of an alleged defamatory publication by defendant No. 1.
3. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company, of which plaintiff No. 2 is the Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiff No. 2 is also a co-founder of the parent group of companies of plaintiff No. 1.
4. Defendant No. 1 is a media platform which publishes news content on its portal.
5. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that the grievance of the plaintiffs arises from an article which purports to refer to two separate criminal cases against two persons who are described as co-founders of ‘Builder.ai’, which is the trade name of plaintiff No. 1. He states that the said article is located behind a paywall, i.e., a reader is required to make a payment to access the complete article. What is available to a viewer, at first instance, is a headline which reads as follows: “Microsoft-Backed Builder.ai Cofounders Booked In Two Separate Criminal Cases”, alongwith a photograph of plaintiff No. 2. Upon clicking on the headline (without making any payment) the reader can access a summary of the article, and entirety of the article is made available only after making payment is the.
6. Mr. Sibal, inter alia submits that the headline, summary and contents of the article are all false, insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned.
Mr. Sibal also submits that the plaintiffs were not given an opportunity CS(OS) 277/2024 or, at any rate, were given an insubstantial opportunity, to present their side for inclusion in the said article.
7. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Senior Counsel for defendant No. 1, denies these allegations and reserves the defences to be taken by defendant No. 1, in its written statement.
8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid position, Mr. Sibal and Mr. Singh, upon instructions, have come to a consensus upon which the application can be disposed o
