CS (OS) No.1137/2012 Page 1 of 9

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

+

CS(OS) 1137/2012 and I.A. No.7579/2012

%

Judgment decided on : 10.05.2012

NIRMALJIT SINGH NARULA

..... Plaintiff

Through Mr Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with

Mr S.K. Maniktala, Mr A. Sarkar,

Mr R.K. Chaudhary and Mr Varun

Panta, Advs.

versus

STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through Mr Sidharth Chopra, Adv. for

Defendants No.1 & 2.

Mr Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with

Mr Rajiv Sarin and Mr Sooraj, Advs.

for Defendants No.8 and 9.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

1.

Mr Nirmaljit Singh Narula, plaintiff herein, filed the

present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for

Rs.50 crores for defamation against seven defendants, including,

defendant No.1 Star India Pvt. Ltd., Mr Uday Shanker, CEO of

defendant No.1, Mr Shrivardhan Trivedi and Ms Sumaira Khan, both

Anchors of defendant No.1.

2.

When the suit and interim application were listed first time

on 24.04.2012, summons and notice were issued to the defendants for

27.04.2012.

3.

On 27.04.2012, Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate,

2012:DHC:3204

CS (OS) No.1137/2012 Page 2 of 9

appeared on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, who informed the

Court orally that it is the Media Contents and Communication

Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who was telecasting the news on the Star News

Channel. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were not necessary

parties to the suit. He was granted time to file the affidavit in this

regard and the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2012 for taking

necessary steps by the plaintiff.

4.

On 01.05.2012, the plaintiff‟s two applications, filed under

Order I, Rule 10 CPC and Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, were allowed and

defendants No.8 and 9 were impleaded. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed

the amended memo of parties and plaint. Dasti summons and notice

were issued to the said parties for 07.05.2012. On 07.05.2012, when

the matter was listed, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the plaintiff, was pressing for interim protection

immediately on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. On the

other hand, Mr Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the defendants No.8 and 9, sought time to file the written-statement

and reply to the interim application. As Mr Lekhi was insisting for

interim protection due to the nature of urgent matter, defendants No.8

and 9 were given two days‟ time to file short affidavit to put their

stand about the allegation made in the plaint before filing written

statement and reply. Prayer for interim protection was strongly

opposed by Mr Agnani. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 was

pressing for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The

said request was opposed by Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel for the

plaintiff. Service report for other defendants is still awaited.

5.

In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff against the Star News

2012:DHC:3204

CS (OS) No.1137/2012 Page 3 of 9

Channel as alleged in the plaint is that :-

(a)

The plaintiff‟s teachings and preaching emphasize the values

of true, selfless prayer and devotion to one‟s duties and guide

his followers/devotees to abstain from, rather shun the path of

„mantra‟, „tantra‟, or „yantra‟, or in other words „black magic‟

or „tantric practices‟. The plaintiff teaches his followers to

spiritually evolve their lives by believing in the ultimate

powers of the religion they follow.

(b)

The plaintiff started holding Holy Samagams (congregation)

where the followers/devotees come to hear his spiritual

discourses and seek his blessings. The workings and

programs

of

the

„Darbar‟

and

his