CS (OS) 2777/2014, I.A. Nos. 17728, 17729 and 17730/2014. Case: Subhash Chandra Vs Positiv Television (P) Ltd.. High Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The plaintiffs namely Mr.Subhash Chandra and Zee Media Corporation Ltd. have filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against five defendants. The grievance of the plaintiffs is about defamatory broadcast made by the defendants against both the plaintiffs. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are as under:

   1. Restraining the defendants and its employees/agents from making any defamatory broadcast against the plaintiffs and/or its businesses.

   2. Mandatory injunction against the defendants its employees and/or agents directing them to forthwith remove from their website and from any other website defamatory material against the plaintiffs.

   3. Damages for the defamation already caused to the plaintiffs.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants have been telecasting news reports/stories by the defendant No. 1 channels against the plaintiffs which are defamatory per se. The defendants knew the fact that the news reports/stories they have been telecasting are false and per se defamatory but they continued to telecast it maliciously solely with a view to defame the plaintiffs and its officials. These programmes were repeatedly broadcasted by the defendants on various dates from 6th /7th January, 2014 and more particularly from 16th March, 2014 to 8th April, 2014 and also on 29th May, 2014 to 30th May, 2014 and thereafter on 4th September, 2014, 5th September, 2014 and on 9th September, 2014 with the sole intention to cause damage to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs. The defendants have aired the defamatory programmes at least 223 number of times against the plaintiffs as on date of filing of the suit.

3. When the suit and interim application was listed before the Court first time, the order for issuance of summons and notice in the application was strongly opposed by the defendant Nos.1 and 5 mainly on the reasons that prior to filing of the present suit Essel Infraprojects Ltd. had filed suit No.645/2014 inter alia against few defendants which are dragged in the present suit with the same allegations and same cause of action. The fact of filing of the said suit has not been disclosed by the plaintiffs before this Court. It is alleged by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 5 that in the said suit the interim order was not granted in favour of Essel Infraprojects Ltd. After few days by changing the name of the group company the present suit is filed and in fact Essel Infraprojects Ltd. is also owned by Subhash Chandra who is whole sole of plaintiff No.2 in the present suit.

4. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.5 and Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 have read the prayer of the suit filed before Bombay High Court (Bombay Suit) wherein an injunction was sought from further uttering/ repeating/ writing/publishing/telecasting/airing any programme on news items thereby making defamatory allegations against Essel Infraprojects Ltd. Learned Senior counsel submit that in case the entire plaint of Bombay suit is read in meaningful manner, the character of the plaintiff i.e. Subhash Chandra herein would be revealed. Both learned Senior counsels state that it was the duty of the plaintiff to disclose said material fact. The plaintiffs have also suppressed a criminal complaint bearing No.176/01 of 2014 which was filed before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the defendants for offences under Section 420, 499 and 500 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The plaintiffs have also not disclosed the order of this Court passed in Company Appeal No.25/2014 filed by defendant No.1 against the order dated 9th May, 2014 wherein the operation of the said order was stayed. Thus, it is stated by both the learned Senior counsels that the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands and in fact this court should not grant any indulgence as the plaintiffs have tried to overreach the Court and abuse the process of this law by concealing material facts. Even otherwise, it is stated that on merit the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaint has not been properly signed and verified and secondly the suit against the defendant No.5 is not maintainable as the said defendant No.5 Mr.Naveen Jindal has nothing to do with defendant No.1.

5. Mr.Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 has refuted the argument of the plaintiffs that since the cause of action was in both suits was different coupled with the fact that counsel who has prepared the present case is not aware about Bombay suit, thus, there is no legal harm if the factum of the earlier suit was not disclosed. Mr. Nayar says that the counsel who has prepared the second suit might be aware in view of the reason that the nature of drafting of the second plaint is similar and various paras are common in both the suits. He has referred to paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the suit filed before this Court to show that the same have been lifted from paragraph Nos. 14,15 and 16 of the suit filed before the Bombay High Court.

6. Dr. A.M. Singhvi says that the effect of the injunction sought by way of both the suits would be the same i.e. televising news programme and displaying information that furthers public interest. He has referred to the reliefs clause in both the matters for the purpose of comparison. The same are read as under:

7. Mr. Singhvi has placed reliance on the case of Satish Khosla v. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy, 1998 (44) DRJ 109 (DB), wherein this Court compared the reliefs sought by way of two suits and observed as...