Delhi High Court - Orders
Fiitjee Ltd vs Sadbhawna Today & Anr on 20 April, 2021
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~11 (original)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 225/2021 & I.A. 5723/2021, I.A.5724/2021,
I.A.5725/2021
FIITJEE LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.K.C.Mittal, Ms.Sima Gulati,
Mr. Yuganesh Mittal, Mr. Sudhir Kathpalia and
Mr.Harjot Singh, Advs.
versus
SADBHAWNA TODAY & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 20.04.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
I.A.5725/2021 (condnation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 35 days in re-filing the suit is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
I.A.5724/2021 (under Section 151 of CPC)
1. The prayer for taking the CDs, filed by the plaintiff on record, is allowed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:542. This application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 225/2021
1. Issue summons. Written statement, accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff be filed within four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the plaintiff who may file replication thereto, if any, accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the defendants within two weeks thereof.
2. Mr. Mittal has been advised to implead YouTube also as a party. He agrees to do so. Accordingly, YouTube shall be impleaded as Defendant No.3 and an amended memo of parties would be filed by the plaintiff within one week from today.
3. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 13th July, 2021.
I,A.5723/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC)
1. Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff seeks ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of the prayer clause in this application, which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:54 reads as under:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant an ad-interim exparte injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby a. Thereby restraining the defendants, its associates, employees, agents, servants, attorneys or any other person claiming under him from publishing and circulating the news article defaming the Plaintiff or its officials in the interest of justice till the disposal of present suit.
Any relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants."
2. The plaintiff is a well-known institute, imparting training for aspirants seeking entry into the various Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), which was started in 1992 and has been disseminating education and training since then, for almost two decades as on date.
3. As per the averments in the plaint, Defendant No. 2 joined the plaintiff as part of its Physics faculty and was with the plaintiff till 29th November, 2019, when Defendant No. 2 resigned. It is stated that, thereafter, it was found that Defendant No.2 had raised various fabricated expense bills, which constrained the plaintiff to file a complaint against Defendant No. 2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), followed by an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, for registration of FIR.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:544. At this stage, it is averred that Defendant No. 2 started circulating messages defaming and disparaging the plaintiff. Reference has been made to a WhatsApp message received on 9th January, 2021 by one of the employees of the plaintiff from Defendant No. 2, defaming the plaintiff with a threat to gherao the office of the plaintiff. This constrained the plaintiff to file a suit before the trial court and, on no interim order granted therein, move this Court by way of CM(M) 89/2021 in which, by order dated 3rd February, 2021, this Court restrained Defendant No. 2 from carrying out any protest within 200 m of the plaintiff's premises. This order also restrained the defendant from circulating or publishing any defamatory material against the plaintiff.
5. It is further averred that Defendant No. 1, in collusion with Defendant No. 2, posted an article defamatory to the plaintiff on its Facebook and Twitter social media handles, alleging that the plaintiff had cheated Defendant No. 2. The plaintiff, accordingly, issued a legal notice dated 12th February, 2021 to Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 did not issue any response thereto, but, instead, released a video on Youtube as well as on its Facebook page, which, according to the plaintiff, was highly scandalous in nature referring the plaintiff as a thief and as having cheated Defendant No.2. A copy thereof has also been filed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is also alleged to have stated, in the said video, that it was not required to carry out any verification before making such statements defamatory to the plaintiff and that the remedy with the plaintiff laid in the court.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:546. Aggrieved thereby and alleging that the acts of the defendants were severely damaging to the reputation of the plaintiff, which was an established institution, the plaintiff has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the Defendant No. 1 to withdraw the "report" posted by Defendant No. 1 on the website. Mr. Mittal points out that, in essence, the plaintiff is referring to the video posted by Defendant No. 1 on its Youtube account. Additionally, a prayer, restraining the defendants from posting any defamatory material against the plaintiff has also been sought.
7. That the plaintiff is entitled to ex parte ad-interim relief is obvious, even in view of the order dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court which restrained Defendant No. 2 from publishing or circulating any material defamatory to the plaintiff. The Youtube video, uploaded by Defendant No. 1, relates squarely to the allegations made by Defendant No. 2. Prima facie, there is substance in the submission of the plaintiff that the Youtube video dated 15th February, 2021 was uploaded only to circumvent and overreach the order dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by this Court in CM (M) 89/2021.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts, Defendant No. 1 is directed to, within 24 hours of being communicated a copy of this order electronically, remove, from its Youtube channel, the offending video, of 4 minutes 55 seconds length, which was uploaded on 15th February, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 5 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:54 2021.
9. Failure to do so shall expose Defendant No.1 to appropriate action by this Court.
10. Issue notice of this application to the defendants, returnable on 8th July, 2021.
11. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks from today with advance copy to learned Counsel for the plaintiff who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, before the next date of hearing.
12. Re-notify the application for hearing and disposal subject to completion of pleadings on 8th July, 2021 before Court.
13. The Registry is directed to e-mail a copy of this order to learned Counsel for the plaintiff as well as to the e-mail ID of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, as soon as it is corrected and available.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J APRIL 20, 2021/kr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS (OS) 225/2021 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:23.04.2021 13:11:54