Bangalore District Court
The Akshaya Patra Foundation Trust vs Balaji Subhash on 18 December, 2024
KABC010169672011
Presented on : 18-07-2011
Registered on : 18-07-2011
Decided on : 18-12-2024
Duration: 13 years, 5 months, 0 days
BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH-67)
DATED: This the 18th day of December, 2024
PRESENT
Sri. JAYAPRAKASH. A., B.A.L. LL.M.,
LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
PLAINTIFFS: 1. The Akshyapatra Foundation/Trust,
represented by its authorised
representative
Shri Kodandarama Dasa,
Aged about 34 years,
Hare Krishna Hill,
West of Chord Road,
Bengaluru 560 010.
2. International Society for Krishna
Consciousness,
Hare Krishna Hill,
West of Chord Road, Bengaluru.
Represented by its authorised
Representative
Sri.Acvharya Ratna Dasa,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.DV, Advocate)
2
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
- VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS: 1. Balaji Subhash,
S/o S.S.Madikeri,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.38, 1st Cross,
1st B lock, NTI Layout,
Vidyaranyapuram,
Bengaluru 560 097.
2. TV-9 Kannada,
No.,13/1, Rhenius Street,
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
3. Survana News,
Asia net News Private Limited,
No.204, Embassy Square,
No.148, 2nd Floor,
Infantry Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Director.
4. Samaya TV,
No.10/A, Chandra Kirana Building,
5th Floor, 6th Cross,
Kasturba Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Director.
5. Janashree News,
5th and 6th Floor, No.351,
Salarpuria Tower-1,
Hosur Road, Koramangala,
Bengaluru 560 095.
Represented by its Director.
3
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
6. Kasturi Medias Private Ltd.,
No.12 & 12/1, Kasthuri House,
Kasturba Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Director.
7. News 9,
No.13/1, Rhenius Street,
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
8. Udaya TV,
"MARAN TOWERS', No.9,
Brunton Road, Off: MG Road,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its Director.
9. The Hindu,
No.19 & 20, Bhagwan Mahaveer Road,
(Infantry Road),
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
10. Deccan Herald,
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd.,
No.75, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
11. Prajavani,
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd.,
No.75, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
4
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
12. Samyukta Karnataka,
No.2, Field Marshall Kariappa Road,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its Editor.
13. The Times of India,
BENNETT, COLEMAN & CO.LTD.,
S&B Towers, 40/1, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
14. Vijaya Karnataka,
No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru 560 018.
Represented by its Editor.
15. Bangalore Mirror,
No.4, Pampa Mahakavi Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru 560 018.
Represented by its Editor.
16. Deccan Chronicle,
No.58, 5th Floor, HM Towers,
Brigade Road,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Represented by its Editor.
17. Hosa Diganta,
No.1/1,
Babu Rao Deshpande Smarak Bhavan,
6th Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru 560 003.
Represented by its Editor.
5
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
18. New Indian Express,
Express Publications Madurai Limited,
Express Building, No.1, Queens Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
19. Kannada Prabha,
Express Publications Madurai Limited,
Express Building, No.1 Queens Road,
Bengaluru 560 001.
Represented by its Editor.
20. Udayavani,
No.201, Manipal Centre,
No.47, Dickenson Road,
Bengaluru 560 042.
Represented by its Editor.
21. Colors Kannada,
Office at: 3/2, 5th Floor,
JP Techno Park Millers Road,
Vasanth Nagar,
Bengaluru 560 052.
Represented by its Editor.
(By D2, 4, 7, 16, 18 Exparte
D1 Sri.KKS, Advocate,
D6 & 8 Sri.MKV, Advocate
D9 Sri.KVP, Advocate
D10 & 11 Sri.BSS, Advocate
D12 Sri.CV, Advocate
D13 to 15, Sri.VL, Advocate
D17 Sri.TVS, Advocate
D19 Sri.NS, Advocate
D21 Sri.Varun, Advocate
Date of institution of the suit: 18.07.2011
6
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
Nature of the suit (suit on Injunction suit
pronote, suit for declaration
and possession suit for
injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of
recording of the evidence: 16.07.2019
Date on which the Judgment 18.12.2024
was pronounced:
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
13 05 00
(Sri. JAYAPRAKASH. A),
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant, his agents, henchman, or any other persons acting through him from spreading false information or in any other manner by doing so circulating by going to the press and telecast media so as to damage the status and dignity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sought for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.2 to 21 to restrain them from publishing and telecasting any false and derogatory news in their respective media with regard to fault allegations against the plaintiff and also for cost of the suit.
7O.S. NO. 5110/2011
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case i s t h a t :
The first plaintiff is the Akshaya Patra foundation represented by Kodanda Rama Dasa an authorized representative of a charitable institution, founded by international society for Krishna consciousness, Bangalore. The plaintiff No.2 is a full-time missionary member of ISCON and is also a fund raiser for the Akshaya Patra foundation.
3. The plaintiff further submitted that the Akshaya Patra foundation is engaged in serving the underprivileged children by providing midday meal to government schools. having started with feeding 1500 children in the year 2000, today the foundation is feeding over 13 lakh children every day in about 8000 schools. The foundation is managed by board of trustees, consisting of eminent corporate citizens of Bangalore as well as missionary members of ISCON Bangalore. It has received several awards accolades from the state governments, central government as well as several international personalities and agencies all over the world.
4. In the month of January 2010 the first defendant approached Sri Acharya, Ratna Dasa, who is the second plaintiff herein making an offer that he would organize donations from different corporate companies for the 8 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 foundation. He visited the temple several times during the subsequent months, following his first visit and engaged him in several conversations. In one of such conversation, he inquired from second plaintiff, whether the foundation would give him some commission charges for organizing such donations. The second plaintiff, flatly refused and made it very clear that no such commission is possible, and that the Akshaya Patra foundation does not encourage such giving of commission.
5. In the month of January 2011 the defendant No.1 informed second plaintiff that he is bringing one Sri Bharath Reddy from Hyderabad, who would make a donation from his company. The first defendant accordingly brought Bharath Reddy to the temple, and a meeting was arranged with the second plaintiff. The Akshay Patra program was explained to him in the boardroom of the temple through a presentation. It is only during the end of the presentation that Shri Bharath Reddy revealed that he would organize one crore donation, but he expected a commission. Second plaintiff was shocked and made it clear that there is no such practice of giving commission and the foundation did not encourage such practices. The said Bharath Reddy left without any commitment of donation. On 22 nd February 2011 the first defendant met the second plaintiff at the temple and brought 9 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 with him a cheque for rupees one crore and requested a receipt for same as donation. Being apprehensive of the first defendant, making any false claim for commission charges the second plaintiff insisted on the first defendant, making a letter to the foundation clearly to the effect that no commission charges would be paid either to the first defendant or Bharath Reddy or to anyone for organizing the above donation of one crore. The first defendant immediately with his own handwriting, issued such covering letter as required above along with the cheque for rupees one crore. subsequently a receipt for the above cheque was issued from the foundation. The said cheque was presented for encashment on 8th March 2011 and the same was returned dishonored. Meanwhile, the defendant No.1 started sending several SMS to Shri Kodanda Ramadasa, stating that he has in his possession several video and audio clippings, which would implicate the Foundation in acts of money, laundering by giving kickbacks to those who brought donations to the foundation. He demanded a meeting with the chairman of the foundation, Shri Madhu Pandit Dasa, which was refused by Sri Kodandarama Dasa. On his persistent demand to meet the chairman and his threat that he would go to the media and disable the foundation, the Kodandarama Dasa advised the defendant to talk to the Chairman over the phone. Accordingly on 2nd March 2011, he called the chairman and 10 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 demanded a sum of rupees 25 lakhs failing which he would go to the media and defame the foundation. The Chairman advised him to desist from issuing such threats to the charitable institution. On 2nd April 2011, The first defendant met Shri Kodandarama Dasa and demanded an amount of rupees 3 lakhs failing which he would have a press conference at 3 PM on the very same day and release a press note which he handed over to Shri Kodandarama Dasa. Shri Kodanda Rama Dasa was shocked at the content of the first note. The first defendant admitted that he has through his expert skill in audio video, editing, and morphing creative, a few video clippings, and an audio clipping in such a manner so as to give the impression that the foundation was giving kick back to people who organize donation. Realizing that anyone who saw this clipping would believe they said morphed and edited videos as a genuine, Sri Kodanda Rama Dasa requested him not to have the press conference. To this request, the first defendant demanded an immediate amount of rupees 3 lakhs.
6. The plaintiff, realizing that there is no point in acting on him after the press conference when the damage would be done to the good name of the foundation through his fabricated video and audio clippings, Shri Kodanda Rama Dasa called one of the supporters of the temple who in turn 11 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 brought rupees 3 lakhs in cash which was paid to the defendant No.1. Accordingly, the first defendant left the temple. Within the next one hour, the matter was reported to crime branch of the state police.
7. On 5th March 2011 shri Kodandarama Dasa had an opportunity to copy several incriminating videos from the laptop of the first defendant, while the first defendant was showing the same to Shri Kodandarama Dasa, in order to boost his special skills in morphing, audio, and videos. The first defendant showed pictures of himself standing next to Barack Obama, Putin, Tony, Blair and Manmohan Singh. On 11th April 2011 the first defendant sent an email to the chairman of the foundation Shri Madhu Pandit Dasa with a copy to Shri Kodandarama Dasa. The said email is warning the foundation against complaining to the police about his extortion. The first defendant has gone to the extent of threatening to produce more of the fabricated and morphed videos by cutting and pasting several hours of conversations with the second plaintiff from January 2010 to March 2011 as he has already admittedly done in producing the video and video Clippings shown to Shri Kodandarama Dasa on second April 2011. The defendant No.1 was arrested by the police in connection with the complaint given by the foundation. Thereafter on 17 th July 2011 the first defendant 12 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 has made a booking of the venue of the press club for addressing a press conference at 11 AM on 18 th July 2011. The subject of the press conference circulated by the first defendant States as follows;
Dear friends, millions of dollars scam of ISKCON and AkshayA Patra. Sting operation videos release. LIVE press meet on Monday 18 th at 11 am.
The venue of the above press conference is the Press club, Cubbon Park, Bangalore and the invitation has been issued by the first defendant through the Messenger of the press club to the Defendant Nos.2 to 21.
8. The intention of the first defendant in holding the press conference is only to cause irreparable damage to the reputation of the foundation which will in turn affect adversely the public donations for the noble cause. The first defendant in order to seek revenge for having complained to the police about his extortion has launched this new attack on the foundation. The plaintiff is having apprehension that the defendant may cause damage to the reputation, dignity and status of the foundation, as well as that of its trustees by virtue of press conference to be held by the first defendant, 13 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 followed by the publication and telecast by the rest of the defendants of the fabricated, audio and video clippings, which the first defendant has threatened to release to the media through the press conference.
9. The cause of action for the suit arose when the first defendant has made a booking of the press club and sent invitation to defendant Nos.2 to 21 through the Messenger of the press club as well as the sending of SMS by the first defendant to the representatives of the press, therefore prayed to decree the suit.
10. On registration of the suit, summons was ordered to the defendants. In response to the summons defendant Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 to 15, 17, 19 and 21 appeared before the Court through their respective counsel. Though summons was served upon defendant Nos.2, 4, 7, 16 and 18 they have not chosen to appear before the Court, hence they were placed expert.
11. The defendant No.6 filed written statement, denying the case of the plaintiffs. It is stated in the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is a false frivolous and vexatious, and same has been filed with the sole intention to harass the defendants. The entire plaint does not disclose any cause of action, enabling the plaintiff to file the suit 14 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 against the defendants. The defendant No.6 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit.
12. Defendant No.3 filed its written statement, denying the case of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is devoid of merits, is frivolous vexatious, misconceived and untenable in the eye of law, and therefore deserves to be dismissed in lemine. Defendant No.3 as a responsible representative of the press is under an obligation to promulgate news for the public at large inter alia public good. It is further submitted that as and when information is received, which has a great public interest ingredient, the same is telecasted. The defendant No.1 held a Press conference in the Press Club on 18 th of July 2011 at 11 AM and had informed the defendant No.3 amongst other press entities that the defendant No.1 is releasing a press note. Being a responsible media entity, it was duty of defendant No.3 to give defendant No.1 equal opportunity to express his views. It is further submitted that the representatives of defendant No.3 attended the press conference in which defendant No.1 released a press note and a compact disc of the hidden camera operation, he had conducted at ISKCON Bangalore. Prior to telecasting on 18 th July 2011 the defendant No.3 had sought the reactions and clarifications of the plaintiffs pertaining to the press note and thereafter aired 15 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 defendant No.1's allegations along with the plaintiffs clarification pertaining to the same.
13. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to restrain the defendants from telecasting any false and derogatory news in their respective media with regard to the false allegations against the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the injunction can be granted only when the court is satisfied for good and valid reasons that there will be irreparable damage and not on apprehensions. It is pertinent to mention that such a blanket relief is not maintainable as it would curtail the freedom of speech and expression and freedom of press. The defendant No.3 is not a necessary party or proper party to the suit. The plaintiff has made this defendant as party unnecessarily. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
14. Defendant Nos.6 has filed written statement, denying the case of the plaintiff in its entirety. It is further stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false frivolous and vexatious, and the same has been filed with the sole intention to harass the defendant. The entire plaint does not disclose any cause of action, enabling the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendant. The defendant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit in view of the plaint averment itself. Plaintiff No.1 is not a person to maintain the above suit. The 16 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 cause title of the plaint describes the plaintiff No.1 as a foundation or trust. Para No.3 of the plaint describes the plaintiff No.1 as a charitable institution founded by ISKCON, Bangalore and Shri Kodanda Rama Dasa, said to be representing it, is specifically authorized for filing and conducting the suit. Except the name of Shri Kodandarama Dasa, no further detail of such person is disclosed in the plaint. Nothing is stated as to who has authorized the said Shri Kodandarama Dasa in this regard. A meaningful reading of the plaint only discloses some dubious acts between the plaintiffs on one side and the defendant No.1 on the other. As per para 23 of the plaint, the cause of action for the suit is said to be the first defendant booking of the Press Club and inviting other defendants through messengers and by SMS. Nothing has been produced by the plaintiffs to support such a averment. That apart as can be seen from para 19 of the plaint itself, the alleged cause of action was said to be to hold a press meet by the first defendant at 11 AM on 18.11.2011. Thus by the time the suit was filed, it was apparently infructuous. The defendant No.6 and 12 are neither a proper party nor a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff has nowhere in the plaint has averred that the defendant Nos.6 and 12 have in fact telecasted any news with regard to the plaintiffs herein let alone the alleged news. The plaintiffs have not produced any sort of documents to show that the 17 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 defendant has telecast the alleged news. On this ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed. On bare reading of the plaint averments it is clear that the apprehension has been created/invented by the plaintiffs only for the purpose of present litigation, and there is no truth in it. The defendant has not telecasted any news defaming the plaintiffs Foundation, therefore the averment is unfounded and baseless. therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.
15. Defendant Nos.10 and 11 filed its written statement by denying the case of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that suit filed by the plaintiffs is wholly misconceived, untenable, devoid of merits, and is based on an exaggerated notion of the plaintiffs alleged reputation, and a misplaced for thought that their reputation might be harmed by these defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not legal entity. The plaintiff has no independent existence in the eye of law. The plaintiff cannot sue or be sued in the name. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The admitted position is that the plaintiff is a programme being run by another entity. The entity which runs the program is not before the honorable Court with any grievance. In the circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiff is an attempt to stifle the freedom of the press guaranteed under the constitution of India. Any order of permanent injunction 18 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 granted against the defendant would be violative of fundamental rights in under article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution. The present suit has been filed on the premise that the article to be published would be defamatory to the plaintiff. The relief sought for by the plaintiff in the present suit are based on mere apprehension and are vague and speculative in nature. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. The suit does not disclose a cause of action against this defendant. M/s Printers (Mysore) Private Limited is a printer and publisher of leading English daily Deccan Herald and Kannada, newspaper Prajavani. These newspapers are leading English and Kannada daily, which enjoy wide readership and circulation all over the state of Karnataka and elsewhere across the country. The newspapers are well known for their accurate responsible and unbiased reporting and their news articles are based on thorough investigation. The present suit in effect intends to impose a blanket restraint on these defendants from publishing any article about the plaintiff. The granting of injunction based on apprehensions does not arise. There is a significant public interest in the free and uncensored circulation of information and the important principle of freedom of Press to be safeguarded. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that these defendants would publish the audio and video clippings which was proposed to be released at 19 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 the press conference is unfounded and false. The plaint allegations relate only against defendant No.1 and there are no allegations against these defendants, threatening to telecast/publish the excerpts of the press conference intended to be allegedly called by the defendant No.1. In the absence of any threat of publication or telecast, the suit against these defendants is liable to be dismissed on the ground of miss joiner of cause of action, therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
16. Defendant No.12 has filed its written statement, denying the case of the plaintiff in its entirety. It is further stated in the written statement that the entire plaint does not disclose any cause of action enabling the plaintiff to file the suit against defendant No.12. The defendant No.12 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit. The first plaintiff is not person to maintain the suit. The cause title indicates that plaintiff No.1 is a foundation or trust. There's nothing in the plaint as to who authorized Shri Kodanda Rama Dasa to file the suit. The mischievous intention of the plaintiff is clear by the vague averments made in para 4 of the plaint, therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
17. Defendants Nos. 13, 14 and 15 have filed their written statement, denying the case of the plaintiff. It is further stated 20 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 in the written statement that suit of the plaintiff is false and vexatious in nature. The allegations made in the plaint are totally false and baseless. The plaintiffs have filed the suit with an intention to put a restraint on the rights and responsibilities of the defendant guaranteed under the constitution of India. On this ground alone, the above case is liable to be dismissed in limine. Defendant Nos.13, 14 and 15 have neither published any derformative article nor it has responded to the first defendant messages rendered by the Press Club. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. The freedom of speech is nothing but freedom of expression. The constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression. That being the case, this Court cannot pass a restraint order which has the effect of taking away the fundamental rights of speech and expression. it is well settled law that any pre censorship is not allowed in relation to the press and there can be a little doubt that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press, which is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression declared by article 19(1) sub clause
(a). The defendants are the editors of prestigious and reliable daily newspapers having a right and duty to publish articles of public importance and such right is a part of the right conferred under article 19 (a) of the Constitution of India. there is no cause of action for the suit as stated in the plaint 21 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 and the date which has been shown in the plaint as the date of cause of action is an imaginary one and created only for the purpose of filing the suit against the defendants, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
18. Defendant No.21 has filed its written statement, denying the case of the plaintiff. It is stated in the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have not made any allegations against the defendant No.21. The defendant No.21 is not a necessary party to the suit as no allegations are made against it. It is the apprehension of the plaintiff that defendant may telecast the report. The apprehension of the plaintiff is baseless and cooked up story. There is no cause of action against the defendant for the plaintiff to file the suit, therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
19. On the basis of the above pleadings my Predecessors-in-office have framed the following issues and additional issues:
ISSUES Dated: 29.06.2018 22 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that on 17th July 2011, 1 st defendant made a booking of the venue of press club for addressing press conference at 11 a.m. on Monday 18th July 2011 and circulated the news that "dear friends millions of dollars scam of ISKON and Akshaya Patra sting operation released, live press meet on Monday 18th at 11 a.m." and thus defamed plaintiffs in the press conference as alleged in the plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that due to slanderous and libelous act of defendants there is legal injury to the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed?
(4) Whether defendants prove that suit filed by plaintiffs is not maintainable under law?23
O.S. NO. 5110/2011 (5) What Decree or Order?
Additional Issue dated 16.7.2019:
(1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit to proceed further with, as the cause of action stated in the plaint became infructuous?
Issues dated 1.08.2012:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are spreading, publishing and telecasting defamatory statements to harm the reputation of the plaintiffs in the eye of Society?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
(3) What Order or decree ?
20. In order to prove their case defendant No.2 got examined himself as PW-1. They have produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 in support of 24 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 their case. On the other hand the Deputy General Manager of defendant Nos.10 and 11 got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked one document as per Ex.D-1.
21. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant Nos.10 and 11. Inspite of sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to advance their arguments, the counsel for plaintiff has not turned up to advance his arguments.
22. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant Nos.10 and 11, and on perusal of the materials placed on record my findings on the above issues are as follows:
Dated 01.08.2012 Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3: As per final order Additional Issue dated 16.7.2019 In the Negative.
Dated 29.06.2018
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
25
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
23. Issue No.1 dated 1.8.2012, Issue Nos.1 and 2 dated 29.6.2018: The above issues are taken up together in order to avoid repetition of facts and for better appreciation of facts on record.
24. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 his agents, henchmen or any other persons acting through them from spreading false information or circulating the false information through press and media so as to damage the status and dignity of the plaintiff and also for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos.2 to 21, their agents or any other persons acting through them from publishing or telecasting any false or derogatory news in their respective media with 26 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 regard to the alleged false allegations against the plaintiff.
25. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 had tried to coerce the plaintiff in the matter of paying him commission for the donations when he would secure people to donate funds to the plaintiff charity and allegedly threatening to create morphed images and videos of the officials of the plaintiff foundation. It is further stated that in pursuance of his ill intention defendant No.1 got organised a press conference at Press Club, Cubbon Park, Bengaluru threatening to allegedly disclose " millions of dollars scam of ISKCON and Akshaya Patra, Sting operation videos release Live press meet on 18.7.2011".
It is also alleged that the defendant No.1 invited other defendants to the above said press conference.
26. In order to prove his case the defendant No.2 got examined himself as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, in his chief examination he has reiterated the 27 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 averments of the plaint. To substantiate their contentions plaintiffs have produced Ex.P-1 broacher of the plaintiff Trust which indicates that the plaintiff trust is doing charity by providing meals to the school students. Ex.P-2 is the copy of letter dated 22.2.2011 addressed by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff which indicates that defendant No.1 asked his friend to issue a cheque for Rupees One Crore in favour of the plaintiff as donation. Ex.P-3 is certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.78/2011 of Subramanya Nagara police station which indicates that the case came to be registered against the defendant No.1, for the offence punishable under sections 384, 417, 471, 420, 419, 465, 468 and 506 of IPC. Ex.P-4 is the certified copy of the complaint. Ex.P-5 is the copy of cheque bearing No.312551 drawn on Karnataka Bank issued by one Naveen Subramanya in favour of the plaintiff Foundation. Ex.P-6 to 11 are the news paper cuttings, Ex.P-12 is the annual report for the year 2018-19 pertaining to Akshaya Patra. Ex.P-13 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P-14 to 19 are the various news 28 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 papers dated 26.4.2011, Ex.P-20 to 23 are print out of 4 photos, Ex.P-24 is the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act.
27. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 tried to publish defamatory clippings pertaining to the plaintiff Foundation in press and media. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 had called for a press meet in connection with the same. But there are no documents to show that the defendant No.1 created false documents for spreading false information by circulating the same in press and media. There are also no materials to show that defendant No.1 created morphed images and videos of the officials of the plaintiff foundation so as to defame the reputation of the plaintiff Foundation.
28. PW.1 who was examined in support of the case of the plaintiffs during cross examination has stated that on 18.7.2011 the defendant No.1 did not address press conference. He has further stated that in order to avoid the said 29 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 proposed press conference they have filed the suit. On perusal of the oral testimony of the PW.1 it indicates that no press conference was held by defendant No.1 as contended by the plaintiffs. During the cross examination PW-1 has categorically stated that the defendant No.1 did not send any invitation of the press meet but he has announced in electronic form that he is going to address press conference on 18.7.2011. He has also stated that he has not produced document in respect of the same. He has narrated that CID police have seized the said electronic device. On perusal of the same it indicates that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that defendant No.1 has created false and fabricated documents and morphed images and videos in order to defame reputation of the plaintiff foundation. Except the plaint averments there is nothing on record to show that the defendant No.1 tried to hold any press conference in order to defame the reputation of the plaintiff.
29. The oral testimony of PW-1 indicates that the plaintiff Foundation has paid a sum of 30 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 Rupees 3 lakhs to the defendant No.1 in order to prevent the defendant No.1 from conducting press conference with an intention to defame the plaintiff Foundation. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis the plaintiffs have paid the amount without having any documents to substantiate their contention that the defendant No.1 has created and fabricated, morphed images and videos as contended by the plaintiff.
30. In so for as the spreading and publishing and telecasting the defamatory statements by defendant Nos.2 to 21 is concerned, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that any such press conference was held. The plaintiffs have also not produced any paper publication or circulations of the videos telecast or published in press or media which tend to degrade the plaintiff Foundation in the eye of the public. During the cross examination of PW- 1 it has been categorically elicited that no press conference was held by defendant No.1 as contended by the plaintiff. On perusal of the plaint averments it indicates that the 1 st 31 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 defendant admitted that through his expert skill in audio video and morphing he created a few video and audio clipping in such a manner so as to give impression that Foundation is giving kick back to the people who are arranging donations to the Foundation. But it is not the case of the plaintiff that they have seen the said images or the videos at the hands of defendant No.1.
31. In so for as the legal injury to the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.1 has published or circulated slanderous and libelous articles against the plaintiff in press and media. As admitted by PW-1 there was no such press conference in order to defame the reputation of the plaintiff Foundation. Under these circumstances, there are no materials to show that the plaintiff was subjected to legal injury by the act of the defendant No.1.
32. On perusal of the materials placed before the Court, though the plaintiff has contended that defendant No.1 has created morphed 32 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 images and videos in order to defame the plaintiff Foundation they have failed to establish the same. The plaintiffs have also failed to establish that the defendant No.1 addressed the press conference which was anticipated by them. When the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their contentions there is no other option but to hold issue No.1 dated 1.8.2012 and issue Nos. 1 and 2 dated 29.6.2018 in the Negative.
33. Issue No.4 dated 29.6.2018 : It is the contention of the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. It is pertinent to note that suit is filed by Akshaya Patra Foundation Trust represented by its authorised representative Sri.Govinda Ram Das. When plaintiff is a Trust it has to authorise some person to file the suit. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff Akshaya Patra Foundation is represented by the authorised representative. But no such authorisation is produced by the plaintiff to show that he was authorised by the Trust to file the suit. The plaintiff No.2 is the International Society for Krishna 33 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 Consciousnesses represented by its authorised representative Sri.Acharaya Ram Das. But no authorisation or power of attorney is produced to prove that he was authorised by the Society to file the suit and to give evidence. Under these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff without any authorisation by the concerned Trust and society is not maintainable. During the course of examination of PW-1 it has been elicited that Akshaya Patra Foundation Trust is a registered Trust and ISKCON is a registered Society. It is also elicited that the trustees of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are not made as parties, when trustees are not made as parties, the plaintiff Trust ought to have represented by the authorised representatives and ought to have produced authorisation before the Court. A suggestion has also been made to the effect that the plaintiffs have no authority to file the suit or to give evidence. They have also admitted that they have not filed any authorisation letter issued by the plaintiff Trust. Under these circumstances, it indicates that the suit filed by the plaintiffs without any authorisation is not 34 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 maintainable. Therefore Issue No.4 dated 29.6.2018 is answered in the Affirmative.
34. Additional Issue No.1. dated 16.7.2019:
The defendants have taken a contention that there is no cause of action to file the suit. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that in order to prevent the defendant No.1 from spreading false defamatory statements and videos of the plaintiff Foundation they have filed this suit. But there are no materials on record to show that the defendant No.1 arranged a press conference in order to defame the reputation of the plaintiff. There are also no materials to show that the defendant Nos.2 to 21 participated in the press conference and they have telecasted the false videos, Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not explained as to under what circumstances, he has filed the suit and he has not stated the cause of action for filing the suit against the defendants. Therefore Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the Negative.35
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
35. Issue No.2 dated 1.8.2012 and Issue No.3 dated 29.6.2018: The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from spreading false information by circulating the same in press and telecasting in media and from creating morphed images and videos and also to restrain the defendant No.2 to 21 from publishing and telecasting the false and defamatory news item in media. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to show that any false image or video is created by defendant No.1 in order to defame the reputation of the plaintiff Foundation. There are also no materials on record to show that defendant Nos.2 to 21 have published or telecasted the false information about the plaintiff Foundation. The plaintiffs have filed this suit assuming that the defendant would publish or telecast defamatory videos and images of the plaintiff Foundation in media.
When the suit is filed on the basis of assumption no relief can be granted as sought by the plaintiffs.
36O.S. NO. 5110/2011
36. In support of their contentions defendant Nos.10 and 11 have placed reliance on various rulings. They are extracted here below:
1. ILR 1978 KAR 1560 in the case of Gopal M Hegde and others V/s Narasimha Ganap Bhat & Others, wherein it is held that:
" The mere prospect or apprehension of injury, or the mere belief that the act complained of may or will be done, is not sufficient, but if an intention to do the act complained of can be shown to exist, or if a man insists on his right to do, or begins to do or threatens to do or give notice of his intention to do an act which msut in the opinion of the Court, if completed, give a ground of action there is a foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction. But the Court will not interfere where there are not sufficient data to prove such intention or act..."
2. 1981 SCC OnLine KAR 72 in the case of R.G.Janthakal Vs Bharat Parikh & Co. and another wherein it is held that:
37O.S. NO. 5110/2011 " It is well settled principle of law now that injunction can be issued only on proof of actual interference or threat of interference and not in the absence of it. In any event the trial Court from the pleadings could have but failed to frame an issue on this particular question as to threat and interference by the defendant though it was quite clearly pleaded in the plaint as is evidenced by reading paragraph 8 of the plaint. The lower appellate Court ought to have framed an issue itself and considered the evidence on record and if satisfied could have come to the conclusion one way or the other and then decided the question. This not having been done, the order of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and it is so set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower appellate Court with a direction that it shall if necessary frame an additional issue... "
3. CS(OS) No.881/2014 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Naveen Jindal & Anr Vs 38 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Others wherein it is held that:
" Therefore, in such a contingency at this stage to restrain the defendants from pre- telecasting of the programme or the news article or the reporting would not only be a gagging right to freedom of press but also gagging of the public to know about a candidate who is sought to be elected by its electrorate...
It is further held that- " ... the plaintiffs are not entitled to any blanket pre teleacast orders against the defendants."
37. At this juncture it is necessary to go through Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India which reads thus:
"Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. (1) All citizens shall have the right;
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions or 39 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 co- perative societies;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
38. On perusal of the above aspects, it is clear that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for. Therefore Issue No.2 dated 1.8.2012 and Issue No.3 dated 29.6.2018 are answered in the Negative.
39. Issue No.5 dated 29.6.2018 and Issue No.3 dated 1.8.2012: In view of above discussion and answer to the above issues, it is just and proper to pass the following;
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
40O.S. NO. 5110/2011 (Dictated to the Stenographer-I, transcribed by him, corrected and taken out print from the computer and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of December, 2024).
(JAYAPRAKASH. A ), LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1: Sri.Acharya Ratnadasa @
Abhilash.V.
2. List of documents marked for Plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Brochure of Plaintiff Trust Ex.P-2 Copy of letter dated 22.2.2011 Ex.P-3 Certified copy of FIR & Complaint Ex.P-4 Copy of complaint registered in
Cr.No.78/2011 of Subramanyanagar police station.
Ex.P.5 Copy of Cheque No.312551 dated 7.3.2011 Ex.P-6 to 11 News paper cuttings Ex.P-12 Brouchure of Akshaya Patra Ex.P-13 Certified copy of entire case records in
CC.4761/2012 Cr.No.78/2011 of Subramanya Nagar police.
Ex.P-14 Deccan Chronicle newspaper dated 26.4.2011 Ex.P.14(a) Relevant portion of news Ex.P-15 Times of India news paper dated 26.4.2011 41 O.S. NO. 5110/2011 Ex.P-15(a) Relevant portion of news.
Ex.P-16 Vijaya Karnataka News paper dated 26.4.2011 Ex.P-16(a) Relevant portion of news.
Ex.P-17 Prajavani News paper dated 26.4.2011 Ex.P-17(a) Relevant portion of news.
Ex.P-18 Kannada Prabha News paper dated 26.4.2011 Ex.P-18(a) Relevant portion of news.
Ex.P-19 Indian Express News paper dated 26.4.2011 Ex.P-19(a) Relevant portion of news.
Ex.P-20 to 23 Online print out of photos Ex.P-24 Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
3. List of witnesses examined for Defendants:
DW1 : B.A. Ravi
4. List of documents exhibited for Defendants:
Ex.D1 : GPA
(JAYAPRAKASH. A),
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ, Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced vide
separate judgment with
following operative portion:
ORDER
42
O.S. NO. 5110/2011
The suit filed by the
plaintiff is hereby
dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Draw decree
accordingly.
LXVI Addl.CC & SJ,
Bengaluru.