Delhi District Court
M/S Vlcc Health Care Limited vs Gitanjali Singh And Anr on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHU KHURANA, CIVIL
JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided By: Sh. Yashu Khurana, DJS
CS SCJ 1152/18
CNR no. DLSE030017632018
1. M/S VLCC Health Care Limited
Registered place of Work at M-14,
Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-48.
Through its Authorized Representative.
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Mrs. Gitanjali Singh,
R/o 4, CD, Mona Apartments, 46F,
Bhulabhai Desai Road,
(Breach Candy) Mumbai-400026 (Maharashtra).
2. Ms. Natasha Singh,
D/o Mrs. Gitanjali Singh,
R/o Apartment no. 603, building 3B,
Green Acres, Lokhandwala Complex, Next to Celebration
Sports Complex, Andheri West, Mumabai-400053
(Maharashtra).
.....Defendants
Date of institution of Suit : 25.08.2018
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 29.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 24.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit, seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:05 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 1 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
Brief Facts as per the plaint: -
2. Plaintiff is a company, under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The present suit has been filed through Mr. Sachin Aggarwal, who has been duly authorized vide Board Resolution dated 06.03.2018. Plaintiff company is recognized for its weight loss solutions and therapeutic approach to beauty treatments, including skin, body and hair care treatments and advanced dermatology and cosmetology solutions.
3. In November 2017, defendant no. 1 approached plaintiff's Andheri West, Centre at Mumbai for skin aesthetic treatment (Botox and Filters) and to treat her acne and damaged facial skin. She was explained the line of treatment, procedure and precautions. Defendant no. 1 also signed the consent form accepting the procedure and guidelines. However, she did not follow expert medical advice after her treatment and continued to smoke and did not take the prescribed pills. As a result, she did not get the desired result.
4. Defendant no. 1, not satisfied with the result, filed a complaint against the plaintiff, before the State Commission for Consumer Dispute at Mumbai. She also misused her influence in the society and published derogatory and false statements, in MID Day newspaper, on 08.08.2018, alleging that plaintiff had forged her signatures. She also alleged that plaintiff has employed unqualified doctors.
Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2025.12.24
15:53:16
+0530
CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 2 of 19
GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
5. It is claimed that the complaint before State Commission for Consumer Dispute at Mumbai and statements in the MID Day newspaper have been published to defame plaintiff and to extort money from it.
6. Defendant no. 2 is daughter of defendant no. 1 and was a regular customer of plaintiff. After her mother's treatment, she also posted derogatory and baseless remarks on Facebook, through her post, which were widely circulated and reacted upon by public. It is claimed that due to these posts, many customers approached plaintiff, seeking clarifications and many people were influenced regarding the quality of services rendered by plaintiff.
7. It is claimed that remarks/statements issued by defendant no. 1 and 2 are defamatory and disparaging. Hence, the present suit.
Brief Facts as per written statement of defendant no. 1 and 2: -
8. Defendant no. 1 is a professional numerologist, consultant and author. She had visited plaintiff for hair treatment on 31.10.2017. She was allured by plaintiff's manager and doctor, to buy fillers and Botox injections, for skin tightening. She purchased the package for Rs.96,000/-. On, November 2017, she was injected with fillers, after which she noticed lumps and bumps on her face. Plaintiff, tried to rectify the same, however, defendant no. 1's face was distorted. It is claimed that despite multiple requests plaintiff unable to restore defendant no. 1's face to normalcy, nor did it pay damages for the damage caused to her Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:21 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 3 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
face. Defendants claim that through their statements and posts, they have informed the public about the incident. These statements are narration of true events and do not amount to defamation. Hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
Affidavit of Admission/denial :-
9. Plaintiff has not filed the Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of defendant.
10. Defendant has not filed Affidavit of admission/denial of documents of plaintiff.
Issues :-
11. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, vide order dated 09.05.2019.
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their friends, relatives, family members, agents, attorneys, successor, legal heirs etc from posting any content, material, blog, comment, tweet etc. In any manner against the plaintiff company over any of the social sites, newspapers, magazine, column etc ? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to remove all posts, contents, material, blogs, commencts tweets etc made against the plaintiff company over any of the social sites, newspaper magazine, column etc? OPP Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2025.12.24 15:53:25 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 4 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
(3) Relief.
Plaintiff's evidence:-
12. Plaintiff examined its AR, Sh. Sachin Aggarwal as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, wherein, he majorly reiterated the contents of the plaint. Hence, for the brevity of the decision, the same is not being reiterated. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
SL Documents Exhibits
1. Board resolution dated Ex.PW1/1 06.03.2018
2. Copy of consent form Ex.PW1/2 (the same is de-
exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/2)
3. Copy of complaint Ex.PW1/3
filed by defendant (the same is de-
no.2 exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/3)
4. Reply on behalf of Ex.PW1/4
plaintiff to the (the same is de-
complaint exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/4)
5. Testimonials Ex.PW-1/5
6. Copies of blogs posted Ex.PW-1/6 by the defendants
7. Copy of newspaper Ex.PW-1/7 publication (the same is de-
exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/7)
Digitally signed
by yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2025.12.24
15:53:29 +0530
CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 5 of 19
GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
8. Copy of legal notice Ex.PW-1/8
(the same is de-
exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/8)
9. Certificate under Ex.PW-1/9
Section 65B of IEA
13. PW-1 was cross-examined at length and discharged. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed on 25.07.2019 and the suit was posted for defendant's evidence.
Defendant's evidence:-
14. Defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW-1/A, wherein, she majorly reiterated the contents of the written statement. Hence, for the brevity of the decision, the same is not being reiterated. DW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
SL Documents Exhibits
1. Screen shot of receipt Mark A
of payments made to
the plaintiff
2. Photographs of Ex.DW1/A1 to
defendant no.1 face A3 (colly)
3. Copy of legal notice Ex.DW-1/B dated 21.12.2017
4. The pen drive and Ex.DW-1/C video recording dated (colly) 14.04.2018 and audio recording dated 30.04.2018 along with transcript
5. Police complaint dated Ex.DW-1/D Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:33 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 6 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
02.08.2018
6. Reply to the notice Ex.DW-1/E issued by senior police inspector
7. Copy of newspaper Ex.PW-1/7 publication (the same is de-
exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/7)
8. Copy of legal notice Ex.PW-1/8
(the same is de-
exhibited and
marked as Mark
PW-1/8)
9. Certificate under Ex.PW-1/9
Section 65B of IEA
15. Defendant no. 2 also examined herself as DW-2, she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW-2/A, wherein, she majorly reiterated the contents of the written statement. Hence, for the brevity of the decision, the same is not being reiterated. DW-2 relied upon the following documents:-
SL Documents Exhibits
1. Copy of whatsapp Ex.DW-2/A
chats
16. DW-1 and DW-2 were cross-examined at length and discharged. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed on 07.11.2015 and the suit was listed for final arguments.
Final arguments:-
17. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendants have made defamatory remarks and comments, that have harmed Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:36 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 7 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
its reputation. He stated that these statements have been made to disparage services offered by plaintiff and to extort money from it. He stated that there was no deficiency in services rendered by the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 did not get the desired results, because she did not follow the prescribed procedure and take the requisite medicines. Additionally, defendant no. 1 had consented to the possibility of not get the desired results, when she gave her consent, for the treatment suggested by plaintiff. Thus, issuing defamatory statements by defendants is an invasion of plaintiff's reputation and breach of defendant's obligation not to defame plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to the injunctions sought for, by way of the present suit.
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants stated that statements and posts published by defendants in the newspaper and on facebook, are expression of truth, regarding the services rendered by plaintiff. Therefore, the same even if defamatory cannot be curtailed. He emphasized that defendants' freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed, to protect plaintiff's reputation. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for by way of the present suit.
Issue-wise Analysis and findings: -
Issue no. 1: - Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their friends, relatives, family members, agents, attorneys, successors, legal heirs etc from Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:40 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 8 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
posting any comment, material blog, comment, tweets etc in any manner against the plaintiff company over any of the social sites, newspaper, magazine, column etc, thereby causing insult, derogation, defame the plaintiff company? OPP And Issue no. 2: - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to remove all posts, contents, material, blogs, comments tweets etc made against the plaintiff company over any of the social sites, newspaper magazine, column etc? OPP
19. By way of the present suit plaintiff has sought permanent and mandatory injunction, to protect its reputation and to prevent defendants from invading its reputation, by making defamatory and disparaging remarks, in future, on public platforms.
20. Since, the plaintiff seeks permanent and mandatory injunction, reference is being made to Sec. 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which are as under: -
"38. Perpetual injunction when granted.-
(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.Digitally signed
yashu by yashu khurana khurana Date: 2025.12.24 15:53:44 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 9 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
"39. Mandatory injunctions.--When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts."
(emphasis supplied)
21. To seek permanent and mandatory inunction, plaintiff claims that its reputation has been damaged, by the defamatory comments made by defendants and people have also been disparaged from availing their services, due to these comments. Additionally, plaintiff claims that defendants have breached their obligation not to make defamatory and disparaging remarks, while exercising their freedom of speech and expression.
Digitally
signed by
yashu
yashu khurana
khurana Date:
2025.12.24
15:53:47
+0530
CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 10 of 19
GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
22. To examine plaintiff's entitlement to get the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, as sought for by way of the present suit, it is pertinent to examine the jurisprudence on an individual's right to protect its reputation.
23. Right to reputation being part of the right to personal liberty, is an inherent personal right of every person and acknowledged as an invaluable property. The same is also recognized by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in, Rajan Bihari Lal Raheja v. Planman Consulting India (P) Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3863, wherein it was observed as under: -
"11. But every individual, whether natural or juristic, has a right to protect his reputation and goodwill. No person, even a journalist, has an unfettered right to make defamatory statement about a person to a third person or persons without lawful basis. This right of an individual was recognized by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar Vs. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3357 wherein it was observed that reputation is an integral and important aspect of dignity of every individual. The right to preserve one's reputation is acknowledged as a right in rem i.e. a right against the entire world. The present case involves the interplay and balancing between the following three rights recognized under the Constitution:
(i) The plaintiff's right to reputation and its economic rights (Article 21)
(ii) The defendants' right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a))
(iii) Public's right to know (Article 19(1)(a)) Insofar as the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is concerned, the same is circumscribed by limitations provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. One of the Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2025.12.24 15:53:51 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 11 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution is in respect of defamatory statements. The present suit filed by the plaintiff is primarily based on two different causes of action, namely, (i) defamation (ii) disparagement.
(emphasis supplied)
24. Thus, Plaintiff's right to protect its reputation, must examined while balancing defendants' freedom of speech and expression, which is regulated by Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
25. Plaintiff's case is that the statements made by defendants are defamatory and disparaging, hence not protected under their freedom of speech and expression. The law with respect defamation and disparagement has been elaborately dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal And Ors., 2025:DHC:2973, wherein it was observed as under: -
"A.1 Defamation
38. Defamation is recognized as an actionable tort under the common law geared to protect the reputation of a person. Any oral or written statement, which includes a video, that lowers or tends to lower the reputation of a claimant, is considered to be defamatory. However, all defamatory statements are not actionable as the law provides certain defences that are available to the defendant in a defamation suit. These defences are as follows:
(a) Truth/ Justification
(b) Fair comment
(c) Privilege
39. In the context of the present case, only the defences of 'truth' and 'fair comment' would be relevant. In defamation, the burden of Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:55 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 12 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
proving the aforesaid defences would lie on the defendant.
(a) Defence of Truth/ Justification
40. It is a settled position of law that truth or justification is a complete defence to an action for defamation. The onus is on the defendant to show that the statement made by him was true or substantially true (refer Pankaj Oswal v.
Vikas Pahwa and Ram Jethmalani v.
Subramanian Swamy).
41. In Ram Jethmalani (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view that the defence of truth cannot be defeated on account of malice. In other words, even if the defendant acted with malice, so long as the statement made by him is a true statement, the element of malice is to be ignored.
42. Clearly, the defence of truth is put at a higher pedestal and would prevail over any claim over reputation. The underlying principle is that when a person speaks the truth, he should be able to do so without any fear or liability of defamation.
(b) Defence of Fair Comment
43. The defence of fair comment provides protection for statements made on the basis of honest opinion, as opposed to statements of facts.
44. In Branson v. Bower, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales has explained that the defence of fair comment allows citizens to express hard-hitting opinions on matters of public interest in an honest manner without the fear of being brought before courts.
45. In Ram Jethmalani (supra), the Court has observed that in order to succeed in a plea of fair comment, the defendant has to establish the following:
(i) The statement was a comment based on facts, which are sufficiently true;
(ii) The subject matter of the comment was in public interest;
(iii) The comment was one which an honest person could form. Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:53:59 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 13 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
46. Unlike the defence of justification or truth, malice would be a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with the defence of fair comment. Therefore, in a given case, if the court is of the view that the statements made by the defendant are such that he believed them to be correct on the basis of facts available to him, the defendant would be entitled to invoke the defence of fair comment.
47. The defendant should clearly differentiate between a factual statement and a comment in a manner that the listener/ viewer/ reader is able to know that the statement is the personal opinion of the defendant. If the defendant knows that his comments are based on untrue facts or are made without any attempt to determine the truth, it would be assumed that the comments were made with malice. In Tata Sons v. Greenpeace, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the onus of proving malice in the comments made by the defendant lies on the plaintiff.
A.2 Disparagement
48. An action for disparagement falls within the tort of malicious falsehood and it seeks to protect the economic interest of the plaintiff, as opposed to its reputation in the case of defamation. Disparagement would involve making statements about the plaintiff's goods or services which are untrue or misleading and are made to influence the public in a manner not to buy the said goods or avail the said services.
49. In Dabur India v. Colortek Meghalaya10, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that commercial speech will amount to disparagement if the following ingredients of malicious falsehood is established by the plaintiff:
(i) The impugned statement is untrue or misleading;
(ii) The impugned statement has been made maliciously; and
(iii) As a result of the impugned statement, the plaintiff has suffered special damage.
Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana khurana Date:
2025.12.24 15:54:02 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 14 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
50. The judgment in Dabur (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench and the aforesaid test laid down therein was followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hindustan Unilever v. Cavincare.
51. Unlike an action for defamation, the burden of proving falsehood of the impugned statement made by the defendant lies on the plaintiff in an action for disparagement. This difference is on account of the inherent nature of the two actions - defamation is directed towards protecting the reputation of a person while disparagement is directed towards protecting the economic interests of a person.
52. Since the entire cause of action in a disparagement suit is based on making false statements to cause damage to the plaintiff's goods, the element of malice is inherently a part of it. However, a statement made believing it to be genuinely true would negate the claim of malice. This has been explained by a Division Bench of this Court in Reckitt Benckiser v. Gillette India, the relevant extracts from which are set out below:
"50. To understand the concept better it would be necessary to see what malice actually means. Unless the malice is akin to dishonesty or at least improper motive, the same may not be actionable. For a malice in thought to get reflected in a representation or advertisement, and specially in a comparative advertising, must involve a subjective state of mind of the wrongdoer, having necessary mental element of ill will or an intention to injure. Similarly, if a person is seeking to defend his own lawful interest but, while doing so, he is cognizant of the fact that it would cause damage to the other side, he may not be accused of malice. The trader's desire to promote his business at the expense of rivals is a proper exercise of discretion. A genuine belief in the truth of the statement made negates malice (Horrocks v. Lowe [1975] A.C.135)."
(emphasis supplied)"
Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:54:06 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 15 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
26. In view of the aforementioned discussion, defendants can escape the liability of making defamatory remarks, if they are able to prove that the statements were an expression of truth or fair comments. Similarly, plaintiff must prove existence of malice, in the statements published by defendants, to prove disparagement of its services by defendants.
27. Plaintiff claims that defendants have made defamatory remarks which have disparaged its customers, through Ex.PW-1/6, i.e. Copies of blogs posted by the defendants, and Mark PW-1/7, i.e. Copy of newspaper publication. Ex. PW-1/6 has been proved through Ex. PW-1/9, i.e. certificate under Section 65B, IEA. However, plaintiff has failed to prove Mark PW-1/7.
Hence, the same is not being examined to adjudicate plaintiff's entitlement to seek the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, against defendant no. 1.
28. A careful perusal of Ex.PW-1/6 reveals that defendant no. 2 has expressed her opinion about the services rendered by plaintiff and her opinion on the aftersales services rendered by plaintiff. She has also expressed her anguish, regarding the poor services provided by plaintiff to defendant no.
1.
29. As noted hereinabove, "truth" and "fair comments"
are valid defences to defamation. To prove that statements made by defendants are truthful and fair comments, defendants have Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:54:10 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 16 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
relied upon Ex. DW1/A1-A3(colly), i.e. Photographs of defendant no.1 face, Ex.DW-1/B, i.e. copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2017, Ex. DW-1/C, i.e. the pen drive and video recording dated 14.04.2018 and audio recording dated 30.04.2018 along with transcript, Ex. DW-1/D, i.e. police complaint dated 02.08.2018 and Ex. DW-2/A, i.e. copy of whatsapp chats.
30. A collective examination of the evidence lead by defendants, along with their cross-examination, proves that their remarks and posts, i.e. Ex. PW-1/6, are an expression of defendant no. 2's opinion that plaintiff has failed to deliver the services promised by it. Defendant no. 2 has made a fair comment that the services rendered by plaintiff, has distorted the face of defendant no. 1. She has expressed her opinion that plaintiff's doctors are not qualified. She expressed her anguish that due to the services provided by plaintiff, defendant no. 1 suffered allergic reaction, which left her face distorted.
31. All these comments made by defendant no. 2, in Ex. PW-1/6 are fair comments and expression of truth, regarding the services rendered by plaintiff and the result of its services. These comments are based on true events and are narration of experiences encountered by defendants. Therefore, even if the comments in Ex. PW-1/6 are defamatory, they are protected by defendant no. 2's right to freedom of speech and expression. Thus, defendant no. 2, cannot be restrained from making such comments.
Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:54:14 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 17 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
32. Plaintiff has alleged existence of malice in Ex. PW-1/6, to prove disparagement and to seek the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. It is alleged that defendants have published these comments on public platforms only to extort money from it.
33. However, plaintiff has failed to prove these bald allegations of malice, through corroborating evidence and has also failed to cull out existence of malice in defendants' comments/posts, during their cross-examination.
34. Per contra, defendants bona fide is reflected in the complaint filed by them before State Commission for Consumer Dispute at Mumbai. Additionally, Ex. DW-1/C and Ex. DW-2/A, prove that the services rendered by plaintiff to defendant no. 1, did not yield the expected result. Thus, defendant no. 2, has not acted with malice, in publishing Ex. PW-1/6, and has only narrated her experience and opinion, regarding the services rendered by plaintiff. Moreover, as concluded hereinabove, Ex. PW-1/6 is a fair comment and expression of truth, therefore, there is no necessity for this court to examine, whether these comments have been made with malice or not, as the defence of truth cannot be defeated on account of malice.
35. Accordingly, it is held that plaintiff's reputation has not been invaded by defendants, nor have they breached their obligation of not defaming plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff is not Digitally signed by yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 15:54:18 +0530 CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 18 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.
entitled to permanent and mandatory injunction, as sought for in prayer clause (a) and (b) of the plaint, against defendants.
Relief:-
36. In view of the foregoing observations, it is held that defendants have not invaded or threatened plaintiff's right to reputation nor have they breached their obligation of not defaming plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to permanent or mandatory injunction as sought for in prayer clause (a) and (b) of the plaint.
37. No order as to costs.
38. Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightful claimant against due acknowledgment after receipt of their certified copies on record. File be consigned to Record Room, after preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader.
Digitally signed by Pronounced in the open yashu yashu khurana Date:
khurana 2025.12.24 Court on 24.12.2025 15:54:22 +0530 (Yashu Khurana) Civil Judge-01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi CS SCJ/1152/2018 M/S VLCC HEALTH CARE LIMITED Vs. Page no. 19 of 19 GITANJALI SINGH AND ANR.