Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr Amit Goel vs Shobori Ganguli on 22 July, 2024
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 563/2024
DR AMIT GOEL .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Mr. Ajit Singh
and Ms. Aradhna Sharma, Advocates
versus
SHOBORI GANGULI .....Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 22.07.2024 I.A. 33831/2024 (under Section 149 read with Section 151 CPC seeking enlargement of time for payment of requisite court fees)
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff undertakes to file the requisite court fee within a period of one week from today.
2. Subject to the plaintiff filing requisite court fee within one week as undertaken, the application is allowed and disposed of. I.A. 33829/2024 (under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original copies of the documents)
3. This is an application seeking exemption from filing original of dim/proper margin/underline/single spacing of the documents. Original documents shall be produced/filed, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of the DHC (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
4. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application is allowed and disposed of.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 I.A. 33830/2024 (under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file extended synopsis and list of dates)
6. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
7. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 563/2024
1. The plaint be registered as a suit.
2. On filing of process fee, summons be issued to the defendant by all permissible modes.
3. The summons shall indicate that written statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. The defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
4. The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
5. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
6. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
7. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 27.09.2024.
8. List before the Court after completion of pleadings on 29.10.2024.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 I.A. 33828/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunction)
8. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of compensation and damages of Rs. 2.5 Crores for defamation and mental cruelty and agony caused by the defendant to the plaintiff.
9. It is a pleaded case in the plaint that the plaintiff is a prominent journalist and has been engaged in the field of Journalism and Print Media for over 39 years and enjoys immense reputation and goodwill. Also, the plaintiff has served in various esteemed positions and been recognized for his contributions to the field of journalism and media.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff and so contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has played a crucial role in the growth and success of the 'Pioneer Newspaper' since joining the same in 1999.
11. It is his submission that the plaintiff had a professional association with Late Mr. Chandan Mitra, who acknowledged the plaintiff's valuable contributions to CMYK Printech Limited and Sanchar Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and assured him of dues and transfer of shares of the aforesaid companies as recognition of his services.
12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that despite the assurances, the plaintiff did not receive his rightful dues and shares, leading to financial disputes. Consequently, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings to recover his entitlements, which resulted in initiation of insolvency proceedings against CMYK Printech Limited.
13. He further submits that pursuant to initiation of insolvency proceedings, the defendant / wife of Late Mr. Chandan Mitra was appointed This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 as the 'printer and publisher' and 'Editor-in-Chief' of the 'Pioneer Newspaper' by the Insolvency Resolution Professional ('IRP', for short).
14. It is his submission that as the plaintiff has initiated legal proceedings against CMYK Printech Limited, the defendant harboured a grudge against the plaintiff and thus, started to engage in actions aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff.
15. He submits that on 06.07.2024, the defendant circulated a defamatory email along with an attached letter with the subject unauthorized changes and interference in editorial affairs, maliciously alleging that the plaintiff was involved in unauthorized editorial changes, money laundering, serious fraud, and causing financial strain to CMYK Printech Limited.
16. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following excerpt of the email dated 06.07.2024, to contend that the said excerpt was particularly demeaning and was written deliberately and mala- fidely with the sole intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the plaintiff:
"Franchise Model and Brand Dilution: It has come to light that you, in collusion with the suspended director Amit Goel, have initiated a franchise business model across the country. This scheme appears to be designed to dilute the brand of The Pioneer and potentially launder money through the franchise model. This has been done without the approval of the suspended Board of Directors of CMYK Printech Ltd or the consent of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). This constitutes a serious fraud and adds unwarranted liabilities to the enterprise, which is already under financial strain due to the actions of Amit Goel. The impractical deadlines mentioned earlier in this mail clearly compromised the editorial quality and content of the Pioneer edition based in Delhi, only to facilitate smooth operations of the franchisees This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 who are known to use the Pioneer brand to further their own commercial interests ".
17. He submits that the said email and letter, were circulated amongst various stakeholders, including media personnel, employees and business associates, particularly to damage the professional reputation of the plaintiff.
18. It is his submission that defamatory statements in the email and letter have caused immense mental agony, distress, and loss of reputation to the plaintiff, affecting his professional and personal life. He submits that the defamatory email and letter were deliberately circulated by the defendant only to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.
19. He submits that the defamatory communication is liable to be stopped from further circulation as it is most likely that the said email has reached various employees of CMYK Printech Limited. The employees of CMYK Printech Limited which report to the defendant have access to email and letter of the defendant and the defendant must have got the email and letter typed from her employees.
20. He further submits that that incumbent IRP viz. Mr. Mukesh Jain was also marked in the said email, therefore, Mr. Mukesh Jain and his staff who are in Delhi have also accessed the said email and letter. Further, the email has also been marked to various stakeholders, ex-Directors of CMYK Printech Limited and thus, the plaintiff has been defamed to unimaginable extent.
21. He thus, urges the Court that an ad interim injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendant its agents, servants, employees, officers, associates, representatives, attorneys and all acting for This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 and on her behalf from making, publishing, or circulating any defamatory statements against the plaintiff in the future.
22. I have gone through the alleged email dated 06.07.2024, sent by the defendant and addressed to Mr. Mukesh Jain, IRP of CMYK Printech Limited. The same contains statements to the effect that Mr. Mukesh Jain in collusion with the suspended director i.e. 'the plaintiff', have initiated a business model across the country to dilute the brand of 'the Pioneer' as well as to launder money through that business model. It further states that the initiation of business model has been done without the approval of the suspended Board of directors of CMYK Printech Limited or the consent of the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') thus, the same constitutes a serious fraud and adds unwarranted liabilities to the enterprise, which is already under financial strain due to the actions of the plaintiff.
23. I have also perused document no.1 attached to the plaint which is a screenshot of the email dated 06.07.2024. The same reveals that the said email containing statements against the plaintiff as noted above was not only addressed to the plaintiff but has also been sent to other persons having the following email addresses: - (i) Mukesh Jain ([email protected]), (ii) [email protected], (iii) [email protected], (iv) Kushan Mitra ([email protected]), (v) Vijayprakash Singh ([email protected]) and (vi) Shobori Ganguli ([email protected]).
24. It is apposite to note here that the meaning of the term 'defamation' has been expounded by the High Court of Patna in Pandey Surendra Nath Sinha v. Bageshwari Pd., AIR 1961 Pat 164, as under: -
"15. A wrong of defamation, as such, consists in the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:28 publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification.
16. The word 'defamation' is the generic name for the wrong; libel and slander are particular forms of it. Defamation, therefore, is of two kinds, namely, libel and slander. In libel the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as, printing, typing, pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander the defamatory statement or representation is expressed by speech or its equivalents, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger-language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.
17. The actions of libel and slander are thus private legal remedies, the object of which is to make reparation for the private injury done by wrongful publication to a third person or persons of defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff. The defendant in these actions may prove the truth of the defamatory matter and thus show that the plaintiff has received no injury. For though there may be damage accruing from the publication, yet, if the facts published are true, the law gives no remedy by action.
18. We are here concerned with an action for libel. In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of (1) refers to him; (2) is in writing, (3) is defamatory, and, (4) was published by the defendant to a third person or persons. A man publishes defamatory statements at his peril. An action for libel, therefore, lies on mere proof of publication, even though the plaintiff does not prove that he has suffered any special damage, that is, the loss of some definite temporal advantage."
(emphasis supplied)
25. If the email is tested on the touch stone of aforesaid ingredients of libel, it becomes apparent from paragraph 16 above that the email is not only in writing but it specifically refers to the plaintiff and the allegations such as 'in collusion with suspended director plaintiff' and business model of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:29 plaintiff 'constitutes a serious fraud....to the enterprises, which is under financial strain due to the actions of the plaintiff', are per se defamatory and without disclosing any basis for the same. Further, the mail has also been circulated to other persons.
26. It is also apposite to refer to the decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri vs. Saket Gokhale, (2021) 3 HCC (Del) 23, wherein it was held as under: -
"29. Reputations, nourished and nurtured over years of selfless service and toil, may crumble in an instant; one thoughtless barb is sufficient. It has been held, by the Supreme Court, that the right to life, consecrated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, infuses the reputation of the individual. [Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 8 SCC 1; Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494; Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124] Reputation, it is well settled, precedes the man. In a similar vein, para 18 of the report in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna [Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna, (1986) 4 SCC 537] observes thus:
"For instance, as in the present case, where a member of a highly respected an (sic) publicly trusted profession is found guilty of misconduct and suffers penalty, the damage to his professional reputation can be immediate and far-reaching. 'Not all the King's horses and all the King's men' can ever salvage the situation completely, notwithstanding the widest scope provided to an appeal. To many a man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It affects his standing and dignity among his fellow members in the profession, and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous, conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blasé attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:29 a man's professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision."
30. In the age of social media, desecration of the reputation of a public figure has become child's play. All that is needed is the opening of a social media account and, thereafter, the posting of messages on the account. Thousands of responses are received and, in the process, the reputation of the man, who is targeted, becomes mud..."
(emphasis supplied)
27. Likewise, in Naresh Kumar vs. Wire and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7314, this Court has held as under:
"30. Undoubtedly, while freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct, the reputation of a person earned over several decades, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of such freedom, when the impugned publication, ex-facie, contains unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory imputations, regardless of the truth. In the present case, the Court has also taken note of the crescendo of politically motivated tweets/posts/comments, virtually in sync with the publication of the aforesaid article/publication dated 09.11.2023, which further validate the necessity of urgent injunctive order/s. Incidentally, one such tweet is by the author of the "preliminary report" sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2. The said report, which is dated 14.11.2023, ex-facie, cannot afford any justification for the impugned article dated 09.11.2023."
(emphasis supplied)
28. Having noticed the aforesaid dicta as well as material on record, I am of the prima facie view that the statements made in the said email are not supported by any evidence or material to show that the same are true and based on facts, therefore, the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of ad This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:29 interim relief. I am satisfied that grave and irreparable damages will be caused to the plaintiff, if ad interim injunctive orders are not passed in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.
29. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the defendant, her agents, servants, employees, officers, associates, representatives, attorneys and all acting for and on her behalf are restrained from making, publishing, or circulating any statements of the nature outlined in the email dated 06.07.2024 against the plaintiff, till the next date of hearing.
30. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be made within ten days from the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of order be also given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
31. The observations made herein are prima facie for the consideration of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C by the plaintiffs.
32. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 27.09.2024.
33. List before the Court on 29.10.2024.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JULY 22, 2024 'rs' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/08/2024 at 22:18:29