Madras High Court
Thiruvarur Vaidyanathan vs N.Murali on 21 October, 2018
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
O.A.122 of 2020
in
C.S.No.78 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.08.2020
Delivered on : 01.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
O.A.122 of 2020
in
C.S.No.78 of 2020
Thiruvarur Vaidyanathan ... Applicant
Vs
1.N.Murali
2.Dr.Meenakshi (Sumathi) Krishnan
3.V.Srikanth
4.V.Sriram ... Respondents
Prayer: Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original
Side Rules read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC to pass an order of
1/16
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.A.122 of 2020
in
C.S.No.78 of 2020
ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents / defendant's
herein to include the name of the petitioner / plaintiff as Mridangam
accompanist, for the forthcoming Annual Conference and Concerts,
December 2020 Music Festival conducted by the Music Academy Madras.
For Applicant : Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan
For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.T.Mohan
Ms.S.Devika
For Respondents 2 & 4 : Mr.Arun Anbumani
ORDER
The above application is filed for an ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents / defendants to include the name of the petitioner / plaintiff as a Mridangam accompanist for the forthcoming Annual Conference and Concerts December 2020, the music festival conducted by the Music Academy, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Academy and pass such other orders. The applicant herein had filed the suit C.S.No.78 of 2020 seeking, the following reliefs: 2/16
http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 “a. Direct the respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) as compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the act of defamation of the defendants 1 to 4.
b.Direct the defendants to recall, the contents of the letter dated 21.10.2018, the interview of Pudhiya Thalaimurai Tamil Media TV Channel, the interview to the Hindu and the Times of India Newspapers, the interview to Behindwoods Internet Channel.
c.Direct the defendants to issue an unconditional apology with retracting statements in the said Media.”
2. The applicant has knocked the doors of this Court with the following case. He would submit that he is a renowned Mridangam Vidwan who was an accompanist for several renowned Carnatic vocalist and musicians. He would state that he has played for Late. Smt.M.L.Vasanthaumari, Late. Smt.D.K.Pattammal, Late. Flute Ramani, Late. Shri.K.V.Narayanasamy, Late. Dr.M.Balamurali Krishna, Late. 3/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 Shri.Maharajapuram Santhanam, Late. Shri. Mandolin Srinivas, Shri. T.N.Krishnan, Shri. T.V.Sankaranayanan, Smt.Aruna Sairam, Shri. K.J.Yesudas, Smt.Sudha Raghunathan, Shri.Ravikiran to name but a few.
3. The applicant has also listed out the various awards that he has been conferred with. The applicant would also state that he had the honour of playing the Mridangam in Jugalbandi Concerts with legends such as Shri.Pandit Bhimsen Joshi, Shri.Ajay Chakraborty, Shri. Pandit Sahit Parvesh, Shri. Rakesh Chaurasia and Shri. Pandit Debashish Battacharya. He would state that he is well renowned not only in the Carnatic field but also in Hindustani Music Circles.
4. While so, one Chinmayi Sripada, Vocalist and Playback Singer had made a defamatory statement in her Twitter page alleging that the applicant was guilty of sexual harassment of young girls. On the basis of this irresponsible and defamatory statement the applicant who was already slotted to play in the December 2018 Music Season the Academy, was informed that in the light of the allegations the Academy had decided not 4/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 to feature him in the Concerts scheduled for December 2018. The letter dated 21.10.2018 was received from the 1st and 2nd respondents representing the Academy. On account of this action the applicant had suffered immense mental agony and fall of face amongst the public.
5. That apart the 1st respondent had given an interview to the Tamil Channel, Puthiya Thalaimurai which was aired on 25.10.2018. Apart from that, statements were also given to the print media. This act of the respondents is a deliberate act of defamation since the allegation that was made in the Twitter page of the said Chinmayi Sripada was not followed up with any formal complaint and the same remained only an allegation.
6. The applicant would further submit that after he had been unceremoniously removed from performing at the Academy he had received the prestigious “Sangeet Natak” Academy award from none less than the President of India. He has also received the “Kalaimaamani” award from the Government of Tamil Nadu on 13.08.2019. The applicant would further submit that despite the fact that there was no formal 5/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 complaint nor the allegation substantiated by proof he was once again kept away from the 2019 Concert by the Academy.
7. The conduct of the Academy by not featuring him as an artist for two continuous years and giving interviews in the print and visual media had slandered the applicant's image and this act of slander leading to defamation of the applicant requires that the respondents compensate him by paying damages of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- and to further publicly express remorse for having so defamed the applicant.
8. Reiterating the very same contention that has been raised in the plaint, the applicant has come forward with the present application in which in addition to the averments already contained in the plaint he would submit that by removing his name from the concert of the year 2018 and not including in the year 2019 December caused irreparable loss and hardship and damage to his reputation, more particularly when none have lodged any complaint alleging misconduct either before the Academy or before the Internal Complaint Committee of the Federation of the City 6/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 Sabhas. The applicant would contend that this removal was totally unwarranted. He would contend as follows:
“I submit that the respondents would not be at any disadvantage by including my name in the list of artists for the Annual conference and Concerts to be held by the Music Academy Madras in December, 2020, since many leading Carnatic Vocalists and Instrumentalists have always preferred me as their accompanying mridangam artist on the contrary I would suffer serious and irreparable hardship and damage to my reputation if the respondents continue to omit my name in the list of artists for the annual conference and Concerts to be held by the Music Academy Madras, every year in the month of December.” Therefore the applicant would pray for the interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents to include his name for the Concerts for the year 2020.
7/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020
9. A common counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 3, in which they would contend that the process of selecting an artists to perform in the annual December Conference and Concert begins in the month of February and March and a Sub-Committee called the Programme Committee is constituted and the Sub-Committee deliberates upon the selection process of artists for the performance at the annual Conference and Concerts into two phases. Firstly, the list of Senior main artist and accompanying artist are finalised and thereafter the list of Sub- Senior and Junior artists are finalised.
10. With regard to appointing the senior artist, the list is drawn from a pool of artists evaluating their performance in the previous years. This evaluation is done by the two Independent Judges who are experts in the filed. The senior main artist would also have a say in this selection. Therefore, the respondents would contend that the instant application is infructuous for the reasons that the selection has already been concluded. 8/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020
11. The respondents would also contend that they have not been selective in taking action and on the contrary they have removed all those artists against whom allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour has been lodged. In fact, several artists were removed from the performance. Apart from the applicant, one another artist who was removed has also moved the Court. The Academy has zero tolerance in matters of such complaints. They would further contain that the Academy had not banned the applicant or any other artist from performing but had merely decided not to feature them since serious allegations had been made against them.
12. The respondents have also not made any statement that the applicant is guilty of the allegations made against him. In fact, the seriousness with which the Academy treats a complaint of sexual harassment is evident from the fact that they have set up an Internal Complaint Committee and any incident of harassment within the campus of the Academy is dealt with seriousness.
9/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020
13. The respondents would further contend that the applicant cannot compel the Academy to invite an artist to perform as its prerogative of the Society / Sabha to decide on who they would feature. Further, after the applicant was not featured in the December 2018 Concert there was no request by any artist to have the applicant as their accompanist. The respondents have gone on to state that the Academy had called for a meeting of the programme committee on 24.02.2020 vide their letter dated 16.02.2020 to finalise the list of Senior main artist and accompanying artist. The committee had finalised the list on 24.02.2020 even before the notice in the suit was received by the respondents. Sub-senior and Junior artist lists have also been finalised on 04.03.2020. Therefore, if at this juncture the interim injunction is granted it would cause immense hardship to the Academy since not only would it be interfering in the independence and the autonomy of the Sabha but it would also mean that in order to feature the applicant another artist who has been selected must be removed. It would also set a wrong precedent where the artist would compel the Sabha to select them.
10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020
14. Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the list is yet to be finalised and even if it is finalised he would submit that he would request any one of the persons who has been selected to move over and accommodate the applicant. He would further submit that by not featuring him for two continuous years the Academy has caused a great damage to the reputation that he enjoys. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by him to the Academy when they had decided not to feature him for the Concert for the year 2018. In the said letter he had expressed his anguish that the Academy had decided to act on the basis of unsubstantiated allegation. He would also point out to the e-mail that he has received from the ICC (Internal Complaints Committee) of the Federation informing him that they have not received any complaint against the applicant with regard to any “MEE TOO” allegations. He would therefore submit that basis on which he has been kept away by the Academy is per se erroneous and that they should consider including him in the ensuing Music Season.
11/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020
15. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 would raise a preliminary objections that the relief claimed by way of an interim application have exceeded the scope of the main relief that the applicant had sought for in the suit and alien to it. He would also contend that the applicant having kept quite on his non- inclusion for the Music Seasons for the years 2018 and 2019 cannot now compel the Academy to accommodate him for this season. The learned counsel would further argue that the slots have been already finalised and therefore there cannot be any change at the nth hour. He would further submit that in view of the present pandemic the Concerts have been converted into an online one and therefore the duration and the number of participants have also been reduced.
16. He would also submit that the interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in the rarest of rare cases and the instant case does not come within the definition of the rarest of rare cases. He would further submit that if at this juncture the artists are changed it would cause a great deal of confusion and there is every likelihood of the Music schedule 12/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 going haywire. The learned counsel would further point out that no malafides has been alleged against the respondents and further the application and the suit is bad on account of the non joinder of the Academy. With reference to the arguments relating to grounds for grant of an interim mandatory injunction the learned counsel would rely upon the Judgement reported in 1914 ILR (Bombay) 381 - Rasul Karim and another Vs. Pirubhai Amirbhai. He would also rely upon the Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Sriman Narayan and another in which the Honourable Supreme Court had laid down the test which the Court should apply before the grant of interim injunction:
a) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case?
b) Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?
c) Whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if the application is disallowed.
17. The learned counsel would also rely on the another Judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 276 – Dalpat 13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others.
18. Heard the counsel and perused the pleadings and documents.
19. Admittedly the suit filed is one for recovery of damages on the ground of defamation. The applicant has come to the Court with the case that on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegations he has been prevented from participating in a Concert in which he had already featured and that the treatment continues, by reason of which his reputation and standing in the public has been affected. The applicant has not questioned his removal from the Concert for the years 2018 and 2019.
20. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Judgement reported as early as in the year 1951 and reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 = 1951 (2) MLJ 645 - State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta etc, held that "An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on the final determination of his rights in a suit or proceedings". 14/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 If this test is applied to the instant case it is clear that the interim mandatory injunction sought for is neither in aid nor ancillary to the main relief.
21. Having filed a suit for damages the applicant has come forward with the interlocutory application that he should be included in the coming season, namely, December 2020. The relief in the interlocutory application far exceeds the relief claimed in the main suit. Nowhere in the plaint averments has the applicant made any challenge to his removal nor has he sought for a declaration to this effect. That apart, the applicant has not impleaded the Academy which is the body that conducts the Music Season. Therefore, in the suit for damages the applicant cannot get a relief against Academy which is not a party to this case. For the above reasons the above application fails and the same is dismissed.
01.09.2020 kan Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order 15/16 http://www.judis.nic.in O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 P.T.ASHA, J., kan O.A.122 of 2020 in C.S.No.78 of 2020 01.09.2020 16/16 http://www.judis.nic.in