SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 82388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
DR.C.VIJAYABASKAR – Appellant
Versus
R.SHARMILA – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR C.S.No.158 of 2022 Dr.C.Vijayabaskar .. Plaintiff Vs.

R.Sharmila .. Defendant PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC., r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules praying for the judgment and decree against the defendant as follows:

(i)Pass a judgment and decree directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) as compensation to the plaintiff towards loss of reputation/personal injury, mental anguish, emotional distress, for the continuous defamatory statements made by the defendant to the print, electronic media and journals;

(ii)To grant a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anyone acting through or under her from writing/publishing any defamatory allegations and slanderous material about the plaintiff and his family in newsprint, electronic or any other media in any manner whatsoever;

(iii)To grant an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to publish an unconditional apology in prominent newspapers, social media and electronic platforms; and (iv)Direct the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

For Plaintiff : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for Mr.Vaibhav R Venkatesh & Mr.Anirudh A Sriram For Defendant : Set Ex-parte

J U D G M E N T

This suit has been filed by the plaintiff before this Court for a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) as compensation to him towards loss of reputation/personal injury, mental anguish, emotional distress, for the continuous defamatory statements made by the defendant to the print, electronic media and journals; further to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anyone acting through or under her from writing/publishing any defamatory allegations and slanderous material about the plaintiff and his family in newsprint, electronic or any other media in any manner whatsoever and also to grant an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to publish an unconditional apology in prominent newspapers, social media and electronic platforms and to pay the costs of the suit.

2. Heard Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The plaintiff herein was elected as a Member of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly and appointed as Health Minister. He primarily focused on education and health facilities. The plaintiff has made huge development in the health sector and gained reputation in the eye of public in his tenure as a Health Minister. He was instrumental for the State of Tamil Nadu for receiving various awards from the Central and State Governments. When the matter stood as such, the defendant, who is no way connected with the plaintiff has started giving false complaints from the year 2020 and such complaints were made on 26.08.2020 and 03.11.2021, by way of false allegations in the press release and starting giving false interviews from the year 2020 and the same continued till 2021. Besides, she has also lodged a complaint on 03.11.2021 to the Deputy Inspector General, Tirunelveli by making derogatory allegations against the plaintiff. In fact, she has also made a statement to that effect that she know the plaintiff from the year 2013 and there were business transactions between them and the plaintiff owes a sum of Rs.14 Crores to her. Further, she stated that the plaintiff's wife also borrowed jewelleries worth about Rs.14 Crores. Similar allegations has also pressed into service as if the plaintiff introduced the owners of Joyalukkas and Malabar Jewellers. Similarly, the allegation has been made by the defendant stating that the plaintiff conspired with the owners of the jewellery shops and registered a fake complaint against her. Further allegation is that the defendant had split the gold into three parts and handed over the same to the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top