Bangalore District Court
M/S.Dodla Dairy Limited vs Kannada Prabha Daily News Papers on 10 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH-13)
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2017
PRESENT
Sri.Muhammed Khan .M. Pathan,
B.Com., LL.B.(Spl), LL.M.(Business Law)
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE
O.S.NO.9184/2013
PLAINTIFF: M/s.Dodla Dairy Limited
No.104/A, 3rd main road,
Industrial Town,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 044.
Rep. by its Regional Manager,
Sri.J.D.Ezra
S/o Late David
Aged 51 years,
(By Sri.Janardan Reddy, Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: Kannada Prabha Daily News Papers
No.1, Express Building,
Queens Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its Chief Editor
(By Sri.N.K, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 17-12-2013
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Injunction suit
pronote, : suit for declaration
and possession ,suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of Commencement of 11-02-2015
recording of evidence
2 O.S.No.9184/2013
Date on which judgment was 09-03-2017
Pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
03 02 20
(Muhammed Khan .M. Pathan)
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's suit is for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from publishing making allegations in their newspapers against plaintiff without proper reasons.
.2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:
The plaintiff is running the milk diary in the name and style of M/s. Dodla Diary Limited, represented by its Regional Manager. According to the plaintiff, it is a registered limited firm constituted by its partners to carryon the business of distribution of the milk and milk products etc. The plaintiff is engaged in 3 O.S.No.9184/2013 business for distribution of milk and milk products in and around the Karnataka State, nearly 2,00,000 liters per day. The plaintiff purchases the milk from the milk vendors and after taking food safety measures, they send it for manufacture of liquid milk, skim milk powder, butter, ghee, curd, buttermilk, sterilized flavored milk, doodh peda and paneer at Nellore. It also includes manufactures of liquid milk, curd and butter at palamaner and manufacture of liquid milk at Panemur and other products and distribute it to the customers and sell the products as well as milk and curd. The plaintiff obtained license and permission from food safety and standards authority of India and certificate is issued certifying the plaintiff firm. There are several branches in the city as well as Andhra Pradesh. This firm is having good repudiation and name in the state of Karnataka and every day they supply the 2,00,000 liters of milk and curd without any remarks till day.4 O.S.No.9184/2013
The plaintiff firm has earned good market and established its business. The business of the firm is growing day by day and consequently their good will is growing. The defendant without any proper reasons or proof the concerned authority raised objections or allegations to the plaintiff that they have not performed properly or supplied milk and milk products on quality wise or mixed the chemicals into the milk and supply to the public. But without any proper reasons or any material they have published the same in Kannada Prabha Daily News paper dated 10/12/2013 in front page and made allegations against the plaintiff that they mixed chemicals and water to the milk and selling it to the public. The publication is without any reasons. Hence, the suit.
3. On issue of suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and has filed the following written statement denying the averments and contentions in the suit. The defendant is a print 5 O.S.No.9184/2013 media, one of the largest circulated daily news papers in the State of Karnataka since 1967 and has large presence in the State of Karnataka. The articles dated 10th and 11th December, 2013 published by the defendant are of no consequence to the plaintiff and the plaintiff through the instant suit is merely seeking for a blanket order, thereby misusing legal remedies.
The defendant is a responsible news paper indulging in the publication of articles for the benefit of the general public. A bare perusal of the articles patently denote that the articles merely elucidate the scandal of milk adulteration in the State of Karnataka. The Articles contain statements of the Health experts, Law Minister, Health Minister and the views of other eminent persons of the State of Karnataka. The Article No.2 bears no reference to the plaintiff whatsoever. Mere mentioning of the plaintiff's company as a supplier of milk causes no imputation to the reputation of the plaintiff. The articles were published with the mere intent of creating awareness among the 6 O.S.No.9184/2013 public regarding the various kinds of milk sold in the present day markets.
The defendant further states that articles are mere representation of the truth regarding adulteration of milk and no way concerns to the plaintiff. The defendant has published the truth and has relied on the statistical data in the articles. The Articles set forth details of the various substances used for adulteration in the marketed milk. There is no malicious intention on the part of the defendant to damage the status, reputation and business of the plaintiff in publishing the articles. The order amounts to a gag order/censorship on any publications to be made by the plaintiff. Such orders are not within the scheme of our constitutional framework. It is denied by the defendant that there is any likelihood of the defendant publishing any illegal material. The article is based on the statistics and figures available in public domain and since the articles do not contain any content 7 O.S.No.9184/2013 against the plaintiff, no damage has been caused to the plaintiff. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
.4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed ;
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant without any proper reason has made allegations against the plaintiff ?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as sought ?
3) What order or decree?
.5. The Regional Manager of plaintiff company has filed his affidavit evidence and examined himself as P.W.-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and closed his side. The defendant has not adduced any evidence.
.6. Heard the arguments on both the sides. .7. My findings on the above Points are as follows:
Issue No. 1: In the Affirmative Issue No. 2 : In the Affirmative Issue No. 3 : As per final order 8 O.S.No.9184/2013 for the following:
REASONS .8. Issue Nos.1 & 2 : These issues are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
In the present case, the Regional Manager, Sri.J.D.Ezra, representing the plaintiff firm M/s.Dodla Dairy Limited has entered into witness box and filed his affidavit evidence stating the plaint facts. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that plaintiff firm is constituted by its partners carrying on the business of milk and milk products in and around Karnataka State, nearly about 2,00,000 liters per day, the milk and milk products are supplied. They have branches at Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The defendant without any proper reasons or proof for raising objections against the plaintiff firm that they have not performed properly or supplied the milk and milk products on quality wise or mixed the chemicals into the milk and supply to the public. More particularly on 9 O.S.No.9184/2013 10/12/2013 in the front page article, it is reported that milk is mixed with chemicals and water and sold to the public. In this regard, the plaintiffs have produced the documentary evidence. Apart from the oral evidence of the Regional Manager, P.W-1, the plaintiffs firm has relied on the Food safety certificate, AKCCP certificate, ISO certificate, three Bangalore test house certificates, trade license, Kannada Daily newspapers published by the defendant and 13 newspaper cuttings are placed on record at Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.22.
.9. The defendant is a Kannada Prabha news paper. The defendant has entered into defence and filed detailed written statement. It is pertinent to note that defendant remained absent and there was no representation made. Therefore, my learned predecessor has recorded that cross-examination is taken as nil. Inspite of many opportunities given, the defendant has failed to cross-examine P.W-1 and they 10 O.S.No.9184/2013 have not made any representation for the evidence of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's evidence is taken as nil. The defendant counsel placed the memo of retirement on record alongwith copy of the letter delivered to the defendant in his network. The defendant has not cross-examined P.W-1. There is no evidence from the side of defendant in support of the written statement. The plaintiff has brought this action for bare injunction simplicitor to restrain the defendant publisher i.e., Kannada Prabha Daily newspaper at Bangalore, represented by its Chief Editor from publishing or making any allegations in their newspaper against the plaintiff without proper reasons or proof. The claim made by the plaintiff is supported by documentary evidence. In the written statement, the defendant has taken the defence that defendant is a responsible newspaper publishing the articles for the benefit of general public. The articles published merely elucidate the scandal of milk adulteration in the State of Karnataka. The articles 11 O.S.No.9184/2013 contain the statements of Health experts, Law Minister, Health Minister and the views of other eminent personalities of the State. The article No.1 mentions the name of the companies situated outside the Karnataka supplying the milk. It is published with mere intention of creating awareness among the public regarding various kinds of milk sold I the present day markets. The present day market have a variety of milk such as skimmed milk, synthetic milk, low fat milk etc., and huge amounts of money is spent to advertise their products. The defendant to portray the true scenario to the public and the articles are mere representation of the truth regarding adulteration of milk and noway concerned to the plaintiff. They relied on the statistical data. The articles set forth details of the various substances used for adulteration in the marketed milk. The name of the plaintiff does not reflect in the table. There is no imputations against the plaintiff and the relief sought for cannot be granted to the violation of the fundamental right to freedom of 12 O.S.No.9184/2013 speech and expression guaranteed under the constitution of India to the defendant. The blanket injunction such as relief sought for is violative fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and it is not within the scheme of out constitutional framework. There is no cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
.10. In support of the written statement contention, there is no evidence from the side of the defendant. The plaintiff has relied on the documentary evidence. The Food safety standard authorities have issued licence to the plaintiff firm to carryon the business of distribution of mil and milk products. The test reports are placed on record at Ex.P.4 and the Bangalore test houses have certified that the simple conditions are satisfactory. Similarly the test reports carried out reveal the test carried out are satisfactory. It is no doubt that defendant is a newspaper publisher 13 O.S.No.9184/2013 and in para No.9 of the written statement has specifically contended that there is no malicious intention on the part of the defendant to damage the status, reputation and business of the plaintiff in publishing the articles. The plaintiff cannot seek a blanket injunction against the defendant as for the relief sought for. In the present suit, the relief sought for is violative of fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the relief sought for and the order are not within the scheme of the constitutional framework and there is no cause of action.
.11. In the present case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1999 S.C 1441 in the case of Vidhyadhar V/s Mankikrao and another.
.12. In the present case, defendant has not adduced evidence in support of the defence set out in the written statement. The plaintiff has initiated 14 O.S.No.9184/2013 action against the defendant restraining the defendant from publishing any news item against the plaintiff firm without any proper reasons or proof. The plaintiff has stated that produced sufficient material of evidence to establish that now milk and milk products distributed by the plaintiff are free from harmful chemicals. The plaintiff firm has produced test reports, which reveals that there is no substance in the milk, which is poisonous or harmful to the human health. Therefore, the defendant has to be restrained from publishing any incriminating article against the plaintiff firm without proper reasons or any proof. It is no doubt the defendant by publishing the article in the newspaper upon the statement of the ministry has to be careful to see that no defamatory or derogatory statements are published in the newspaper, which effects the rights of the plaintiff firm. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that articles published with name of the plaintiff firm has to be curtailed. The plaintiff is entitled for the equitable relief of permanent 15 O.S.No.9184/2013 injunction restraining the defendant from publishing any defamatory or derogatory statements or articles with respect to business of the plaintiff without any proper reasons or proof. The equitable relief sought for by the plaintiff is in violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression of the defendant publisher and it is not against the scheme of constitutional framework for which the defendant is having right of expression and to publish the article in the newspaper. Therefore, the food safety and standard authority has certified the plaintiff for having passed the test carried out by the competent authority. The plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. Hence, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
.13. Issue No.3 : In view of my answers to issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff fails. In the result, I pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.16 O.S.No.9184/2013
The defendant is hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from publishing any articles in the newspaper against the plaintiff without proper reasons or proof.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of March, 2017.).
(Muhammed Khan .M. Pathan) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE.
**** ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 J.D.Ezra List of witnesses examined for the defendant : Nil List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Food safety certificate Ex.P.2 AKCCP Certificate Ex.P.3 ISO certificate Ex.P.4 to 6 3 Bangalore Test House Certificates Ex.P.7 Trade license Ex.P.8 & 9 Kannada Daily news papers
Ex.P.10 to 22 Thirteen news paper cuttings List of documents marked for the defendant : Nil (Muhammed Khan .M. Pathan) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE **** 17 O.S.No.9184/2013