CS (SO) 531/2005. Case: Crop Care Federation of India Vs Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited and Others. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CS (SO) 531/2005 |
| Judges | S. R. Bhat, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 rule 8, Order 7 rule 11; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 499; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as amended by Act No.25 of 2005 & Act No.2 of 2006) - Section 199 |
| Judgement Date | November 27, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
I.A. No. 9019/2005 (Under Order 7 Rule 11)
-
This order will dispose of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the defendants, for rejection of the suit as not disclosing any cause of action, and also barred in law.
-
The plaintiff is a company incorporated by guarantee, and claims to be a non-profit organization. Its members and shareholders are insecticide manufacturers, licensed to produce those goods. The plaintiff submits that its 84 members and shareholders are insecticides manufacturers, in India, whose approximate annual total sales turnover is Rs. 5,500 crores (of which export earnings are Rs.2200 crores, and the balance, Rs. 3300 Crores through domestic sales). The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by a series of articles published by the defendants in "Rajasthan Patrika" on various dates in February 2004. The plaintiff claims that the articles had the tendency to lower its reputation, and those of its members, and, therefore, claims damages to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs.
-
The first defendant is the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika; the second defendant, its printer and publisher, the third defendant, its editor, fourth defendant, its advisor, and the fifth and sixth and defendants, its reporters. The plaintiff says that the first defendant's articles were taken cognizance of by the Rajasthan High Court, which issued suo motu notice, in proceedings registered as DB Civil Writ Petition No. 674/2004, to the State Government. It is contended that despite notice being issued by the Court, the defendants continued their vilification campaign. In the meanwhile, the state filed its report to the High Court, pointing out that the insecticides referred to in the defendants' news item dated 12-2-2004 had been banned long ago. The High Court directed two agricultural universities to prepare year-wise reports for 1991-2003. Of the 914 or more samples taken, it was found that in 49 instances, or 5%, the insecticide levels were more than the permissible limits. The plaintiff says that these results clearly falsified the premise of the articles and news items published by the defendants. The plaintiff says that the High Court permitted it to intervene in the proceedings, after which, the matter was disposed of on 27th September, 2004.
-
The plaintiff says that the articles contain falsehoods about the levels of pesticides used, and the alleged harmful effects they have on plant and animal life. It is contended that they tend to defame all pesticide and insecticide manufacturers, which essentially means the plaintiff's members and shareholders.
-
In their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, dt. 05.11.2005, the defendants contend that the cardinal principle for a suit of defamation to succeed is that the plaintiff should be an individual or a determinate body. The defendant argues that since the plaintiff is an association of various firms/companies/individuals from all over India, it cannot be termed as a determinate body and therefore a suit for defamation is not maintainable. The defendant contends that the plaintiff has failed to show any injury/loss caused due to it, by the publication of the alleged defamatory articles. The third ground urged is that the Court does not possess jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit as all the defendants are in Jaipur. Further, the plaintiff in its suit has failed to show as to who read the said news articles in Delhi for it to be defamed in Delhi. They, thus, contend that the suit is not maintainable.
-
The plaintiff, in reply to the said application, supports its case on the proposition that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC requires disclosure of the cause of action and not actual existence of the cause of action. On the point of jurisdiction, the counsel contends that the impugned articles were available to the world at large, including Delhi where the said newspaper has circulation. It is thus stated that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and consequently this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It is contended, by relying on decided cases that the plaintiff, as a representative body, empowered to carry out certain activities for its members, and co-ordinating their efforts, is within its rights to institute the present suit.
-
The defendants place reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Raman Namboodiri v. Govind Nair (1963 (1) Cri. L. J. 535 (Vol. 66, C.N. 164) to say that defamatory matter to be actionable must be such that it contains an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. The counsel further contends that Press being one of the pillars of democracy, is duty bound to inform the masses of the ill effects of the injudicious use of pesticides, insecticides etc. The counsel states that the publication of newspaper articles, based on scientific studies, affecting public health come under the "fair information on a matter of public interest". For this purpose, reliance has been placed on Webb v. Times Publishing Co. Ltd. (1960 (2) Q.B. 535) where it was held as follows:
"A communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contains criminatory matter, which without this privilege, would be slanderous and actionable"
The defendant also relies on the decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial