A permanent injunction against defamation can be granted even where the plaintiff cannot substantiate claims for damages due to a lack of evidentiary support.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff Bank has instituted the above suit for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing any articles in magazines, pasting any posters and holding dharna against the plaintiff, which would tarnish the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and also to pay liquidated exemplary damages of Rs.1,00,000,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) for the loss of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff for publishing defamatory Articles in the monthly magazine M/s.Makkalukkana Neethi Engey and for costs of the suit.

2. The plaint in brief:

The plaintiff is a Nationalised Bank and in respect of the account of M/s.Ind Solders & Alloys Private Limited and M/s.Murugan Foundary Private Limited, Hindustan Plastics and Tools, the plaintiff Bank has initiated measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), by invoking Section 13 of the said Act and brought the mortgage property to sale, following the procedure enumerated under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002. It is further submitted that the borrowers litigated upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were unsuccessful in all their attempts to prevent the Bank from recovering its legitimate dues.

3. The plaintiff would also submit that before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction was issued to the borrower Company to deposit five crores in two installments which order also was not complied with. Even an attempt to prevent the sale of the property by auction, by filing a Writ Petition was unsuccessful and in fact, the Writ Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the Writ Petition requested permission to withdraw the writ petition and subsequently, the said Writ Petition was withdrawn.

4. The first defendant is the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the second defendant and alongwith defendants 3 and 5, they held dharna near the Collectorate Office which is adjacent to the building of the Head Office of the Plaintiff on 09.05.2011 and according to the plaintiff, the first defendant and few others came in person and submitted a representation dated 09.05.2011 to the plaintiff Bank, referring to a loan account of M/s.Hamosons (Haji Moosa Group) and projected as if the Bank proceeded against them in a prejudicial manner, citing their religious community. The first defendant also has informed the plaintiff Bank that he would self immolate himself, if the Bank proceeds with the auction in respect of M/s.Ind Solders & Alloys Private Limited on 12.05.2011. The plaintiff had lodged a police complaint and had obtained security for its Head Office and Asset Recovery Management Branch to prevent untoward incident.

5. The plaintiff further states that the first defendant, who is the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the 2nd defendant has been publishing Articles in the Magazines and affixing posters in and around the City, especially in front of the Head Office making false and disparaging allegations and remarks against the plaintiff Bank and its officials. The first defendant also published Articles in the Magazine “Makkalukkana Neethi Engey” in the months of April and May, 2011 and the defendants were freely distributing these Magazines near the Bank premises only to malign and defame the good name and reputation of the plaintiff Bank.

6. According to the plaintiff, the articles are highly defamatory and derogatory and made against the Bank and its Officers and was likely to create panic amongst the public and was caused severe damage to the reputation and business of the Plaintiff Bank. The defendants 4 to 7 and 10 are persons who stood as guarantors to the loan accounts availed by the various borrowers who are mentioned in the articles published by the second defendant and the defendants 4 to 7 and 10 are personally in charge of the affairs of the borrowers and these defendants have formed third defendant Union, on