Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 679
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J
SREE SENIOR HOMES – Appellant
Versus
MR.C. L. RAJENDRAKUMAR – Respondent
MFA 2686 of 2023
Jurisdiction in defamation cases is determined by the location where the plaintiff's reputation is affected, typically where their business is registered and operates.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 19 and 20 - Jurisdiction of courts - Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for defamatory statements affecting their business - The trial court rejected the suit for lack of jurisdiction, directing it to be filed in the defendant's locality - The appellate court found that the Bangalore court had jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' registered office and business location, and the impact of the defamatory statements was felt there. (Paras 8, 16, 18)
(B) Defamation - The court emphasized that the place of jurisdiction in defamation cases is determined by where the plaintiff's reputation is affected, which is typically the location of the plaintiff's registered office or residence. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a company registered in Bangalore, sought remedies against the defendant for defamatory statements made regarding their business operations related to an old age home purchased by the defendant. The trial court ruled that the suit should be filed in Pandavapura, where the defendant resides.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the Bangalore court has jurisdiction to hear the case as the plaintiffs' business was adversely affected there.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Bangalore court had the jurisdiction to try the case based on the plaintiffs' business operations and the location of the defamatory statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that jurisdiction in defamation cases is based on where the plaintiff's reputation is impacted, affirming that the Bangalore court was appropriate due to the plaintiffs' business presence and the resultant damages.
Result: The appeal is allowed and the trial court's order returning the plaint is set aside.
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for setting aside the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-62) on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.1339/2022.
2. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel appeared for the appellants and counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or their representatives from making, writing, publishing or distributing or issuing any defamatory statements regarding the plaintiffs and their business and commercial activities of the Sharadindu project and also mandatory injunction directing him to tender unconditional apology to the plaintiffs by publishing the same in newspapers and to remove all the statements made against the plaintiffs and also pay Rs.50 lakhs as compensation towards the damages.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant has filed I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 7(a) & (d) of CPC., seeking rejection of the suit. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the suit of the plaintiffs and allowed the application filed by the defendant and the trial court passed an order as "the plaint of the plaintiffs is hereby ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs to present the same before the correct territorial jurisdiction court i.e., Pandavapura, Mandya District, wherein the defendant resides". Being aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs/ appellants are before this court.
5. The senior counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that for all the practical purpose the plaintiffs running the business at Bangalore, registered the company at Bangalore. The defendant purchased the old age home in Pandavapura, in the project of the plaintiff but he has made defamatory statement as against the plaintiffs in various papers and other colleagues by sending messages against plaintiff company, thereby the plaintiff company is affected and damage and loss is caused to the plaintiff company at Bangalore. Therefore, for all the purpose the jurisdiction is of court at Bengaluru but not at Pandavapura as held by the Trial Court. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as per the Section 19 and 20 of CPC., the defendant is staying at Pandavapura in the old age home and he was only sent a letter to the plaintiff in his email which was opened by him in Bangalore and paper published in Mandya district, for all the practical purpose the Mandya Court is having jurisdiction and not Court at Bangalore. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint and directed to file the suit at Pandavapura. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, now the points that arises for my consideration are;
1) Whether the court at Bangalore gets jurisdiction to try the case, as the plaintiff company registered and doing business at Bangalore?
2) What order?
8. On perusal of the records, the plaintiff is a company registered at Bangalore, and it is taken development of projects constructing the Villas or buildings. Accordingly, they said to be constructed a old age home at Pandavapuar, Mandya District. Admittedly, the defendant said to be purchased the old age home from the plaintiff at Bangalore and now staying at Pandavapura. The remaining villas left out in the Pandavapura Taluk, where the old age home is not yet sold by the plaintiff and the defendant said to be found some defects in constructions or poor construction work therefore he said to be made a defamatory remarks against the plaintiff. The same was denied by the plaintiffs. However, whether the defamatory remark made by the defendant or not? Whether it attracts the concerned defamatory statement? and whether the defendant is liable to pay the compensation or tender apology is a matter of trial. However, now the only point arises for this court is that whether B
