Delhi District Court
Cs No.607691/16 vs Mr Ashwini Kumar Chopra on 28 March, 2018
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR- IV, ADJ 06,
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS NO.607691/16
M/s Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd
Through Authorised Representative
Regd Office
201, Suneja Tower II,
District Centre, Janakpuri
New Delhi 110058 ...... PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. Mr Ashwini Kumar Chopra
The Resident Editor,
Punjab Kesari ( Hindi Newspaper)
2. The HIND SAMACHAR LIMITED
The Publisher & Printer,
Punjab Kesari ( Hindi Newspaper)
3. Mr Sandeep
C/o Punjab Kesari ( Hindi Newspaper)
Ramesh Bhavan, 2, Printing Press complex,
Wazirpur Near DTC Depot, Delhi 110035 ......DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.03.2007
DATE RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 27.02.2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28.03.2018
CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 1/18
-2-
JUDGMENT:
1. By filing present suit plaintiff seeking to pass a decree of permanent/ perpetual/ preventive injunction thus restraining defendants from editing, publishing, reporting, printing and circulating any defamatory, scandalous, libelous statement allegations against the plaintiff and seeking to pass a decree of damages to the tune of Rs 5,05,000/ in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant along with the cost of the suit on the ground that plaintiff is a private limited company registered under the Indian Company Act and the plaintiff through its one of the division namely Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess training provides highly specialize vocational training in aviation, hospitality and travel industry and it also provides job assistance to the students after completion of training. It is contented that plaintiff's institute is engaged inter alia in the vocational training for apprising candidates for the job of cabin crew/ ground staff in the airlines and hospitality industries. The plaintiff is a leading institute operating all over the India in this field with the largest number training centres having network around 65 centres approximately in 45 cities of India. It is contented that the distinctive features of plaintiff institute are that it offers internationally acclaimed and highly rated Business and Technology Council (BTEC) higher national certificate and give hands on training in Airbus A300 and it also arranged CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 2/18 -3- at the time campus or exclusive interviews with various airlines, hotels and other services industry organisation for its students. It is contented that plaintiff has ISO (International standard organisation ) 90012000 certified institute, it also publishes a monthly magazine "Aviation Times" which has been recognised by the Limca Book of Records as the first monthly Aviation magazine. It is contented that the plaintiff institute and its professionals have unblemished track records in terms of professional skills , productivity , sensibility and responsibility to handle young students from all over India and it enjoys the premium position in its line of training. The plaintiff institute has been able to build its reputation and has created a separate niche for itself after toiling hard and putting lot of efforts in a period of almost a decade and lastly It is contented that the plaintiff got its name in the Limca Book of Records 2005 and 2006 for the best results - best cabin crew placements.
2. It is contented and alleged further that the defendant no 1 and 2 are responsible for the day to day functioning and publication of the Daily Hindi Language Newspaper namely "Punjab Kesari". The defendant no 3 is alleged to have written a letter to the defendant no 1 and 2 therefore, they are jointly and severely participating in editing, publishing and printing , reporting and circumulating among the general public CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 3/18 -4- defamatory imputation against the plaintiff through news article / letter under the heading APKA MANCH, AWAZ E KHABARDAR, YE DHOKHADHARI HARI which was published and circulated in the newspaper Punjab Kesari on page no 4 (bottom Part) released / issued on 27.12.2006 at Delhi without any care and verification from the plaintiff as such defendant has intentionally defame the plaintiff institute and high official in the eyes of general public which causes / suffer losses of reputation , loss of goodwill , unwanted inquiries , waste of time , loss of harmony, restlessness, damages to the business of the plaintiff. Consequently, being concern of its future prospect to salvage its reputation and to prevent any further such occurrences which defendant may indulge in collusive, served legal notice vide dated 28.12.2006 upon the defendant through fax and speed post despite that defendant failed to comply with the aforesaid legal notice of the plaintiff and plaintiff came to know from reliable source that defendant are going to continue malicious campaign against the plaintiff which resulted into filing of the present suit for injunction and damages.
3. On the other hand, defendants (1 and 2 ) filed their WS while taking preliminary objection that suit is not maintainable as per terms of CPC as only person can be parties to the suit and the definition of the persons can CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 4/18 -5- be defined in general clause act. According to it person would be a natural person, therefore a party has to be sued by name and not by designation I.e defendant no 1 and Sh Vijay Kumar Chopra, defendant no 2 has nothing to do hence, defendant no 2 is neither improper nor necessary party.
4. On merit it is contented that newspaper Punjab Kesari is / was being published in Delhi by and under the control of Resident Editor, Sh Ashwini Kumar Chopra and also contented that newspaper Punjab Kesari is owned by the Public Ltd Company namely Hind Samachar Ltd which is presently on and controlled by two groups namely Group A and Ground B having equal shares. On merits it is contented that the suit is barred by law as it seeks to impinge upon the freedom of phrase as guarantees and enshrined in the Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. It is contented that answering defendants had no intention to defame anyone and letter in question is neither a news item, news story or article being written by the correspondence staff of the newspaper or the editor of the newspaper in Column "Letter to editor" which are being sent by the readers of the newspaper. It is contented that the alleged publication is not an intentional and deliberate act on part of the newspaper rather the averment of the letter are reproduction of the language of the same, which is a matter of record and need no specific reply from Sub para 1 to sub para 15. Further it is CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 5/18 -6- denied that the defendants have received any notice and if any case the defendants would have received any notice from the plaintiff then the matter would not be prolonged for such a long period and the answering defendant would have cleared misunderstanding arose in the mind of plaintiff against the defendant qua the fact that defendant has defame.
5. Replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS of defendant in which all the contents of the plaint reiterated and denied the contents and allegations made in the WS.
6. Upon completion of pleadings vide order dated 16.11.2007,the following issues are framed :
I) Whether the present suit is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties ? OPD
ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages, as prayed for ? OPP
iv) Relief
7. In support of the case, plaintiff examined PW1 Sh Arun Kumar in CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 6/18 -7- which he has relied upon the following documents which are as under - Ex PW1/1 or Ex PW2/3 is Extract of Resolution of Board of Directors of plaintiff's company dated 26.05.2005, Ex PW1/2 is SPA dated 07.03.2007 in favour of Sh Arun Kumar / PW1; Ex PW1/3 is prospectus and application form, Ex PW1/4 is brochure, Ex PW1/5 is pamphlet, Ex PW1/6 is photocopy of limca books of records2005, Ex PW 1/7 is another photocopy of limca books of records2005, EX PW1/ 8 is newspaper in which alleged defamation has been published in Punjab Kesari dated 27.12.2006, EX PW1/9 is legal notice dated 28.12.2006, Ex PW1/10 is fax confirmation report, Ex PW1/11 speed post dated 02.01.2007; Sh Kuldeep Singh examined as PW2 in which he has relied upon the following documents which are as under - EX PW 2/1 is True copy of Board of Resolution dated 04.10.2014, Ex PW2/2 is certificate of Incorporation( but same is deexhibited as the same could not be traced in the judicial record), Ex PW2/3 is Extract of Resolution of Board of Directors dated 26.05.2005, Ex PW 2/4 is original SPA dated 07.03.2007, Ex PW2/5 is Board Resolution dated 19.06.2010, EX PW2/6 is Authority letter dated 02.12.2011, EX PW2/7 is original Prospectus, EX PW2/8 is Brochure , EX PW2/9 is pamphlet, True copy of relevant pages of the Limca book of record 2005 and 2006 are Ex PW2/10 and PW2/11, EX PW2/12 is relevant page of newspaper "Punjab Kesari" dated 27.12.2006, EX PW2/13 is CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 7/18 -8- office copy of legal notice, EX PW2/14 is the confirmation of FAX Receipt and EX PW2/15 is the speed post service proof and Sh Sudhir Malhotra examined as PW3 and on the request of counsel for plaintiff, evidence has been closed vide order dated 06.11.2017.
8. In support of the case, defendant examined Sh. Swadesh Bhushan Jain as DW1 and evidence has been closed vide order dated 28.11.2017.
9. Prior to proceed further here it is important to place here the law or precedent which are established or settled by the Hon'ble Apex court in various judgment pronounced that the wrong of defamation may be committed either by way of writing or its equivalent or by way of speech. The term libel is used for a written and slander is used for a spoken word. A libel is a publication of false and defamatory statement tendering to injure the reputation of another person without lawful excuse or justification. The statement must be express in some permanent form for example writing , printer, pictures and statue, wax work, effigy etc. In the present case the allegations has been made qua the publication of defamation made in the newspaper "Punjab Kesari" issued / published by the defendant. In this regard it is important that newspapers are subject to the same rules as other crities, and have no special right or privilege, and CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 8/18 -9- in spite of the latitude allowed to them, they have no special right to make unfair comments, or to make imputations upon a persons character, or imputations upon or in respect of a person's profession or calling. The range of a journalist's criticism or comments is as wide as that of any other subject, and no wider. Even if in a sense newspapers owe a duty to their readers to publish any and every item of news that may interest them, this is not such a duty as makes every communication in the paper relating to a matter of public interest a privileged one. Just because something interests the public, it is not necessarily in public interest to publish it.
A journalist who publishes complaints of a defamatory nature which are not true is not specially privileged; on the contrary he has a greater responsibility to guard against untruths for the simple reason that his utterances have a larger publication than have the utterances of an individual, and they are more likely to be believed by the ignorant by reason of their appearing in print.
A journalist like any other citizen has the right to comment fairly and if necessary, severely on a matter of public interest, provided the allegation of facts he has made are accurate and truthful, however, defamatory they may be otherwise. Since his right to comment on matters of public interest is recognised by law, the journalist owes an obligation to the public to have his facts right. In reporting or making comments on matters of public CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 9/18 -10- interest the newspaper must follow the rule of 'responsible journalism' as held in Reynolds Vs Times Newspapers Ltd.
Investigative journalism does not enjoy any special protection. Therefore, when newspapers publish accusations of criminal guilt against a person as a result of their investigation, they do so at their own risk and they do not enjoy and qualified privileged.
Newspapers are not compelled to disclose the source of their information at an interim stage in answer to interrogatories. This rule is known as the "newspaper rule" and has been applied in India. But except in respect of administration of interrogatories, newspapers have never been held to enjoy the privilege of not being compellable to disclose the source of their information. The courts have no doubt an inherent wish to respect the confidentiality of information between a journalist and his sources, but the journalist and the information media have no privilege protecting them from the obligation to disclose their source of information if such disclosure is required by the court in the interest of justice.
10. My issuewise findings are here as under :
11. ISSUE No 2 and 3 :
ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 10/18 -11- injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages, as prayed for ? OPP Since both these issues are interconnected, hence are taken together.
The onus to discharge these issues have been casted upon the plaintiff. In support to discharge the onus the plaintiff co. examined Sh Arun Kumar, AR by way of affidavit which is Ex PW1/A who reproduced all the contents of the plaint. In para no 7 of his affidavit, he has deposed how the defendant in its newspaper defamed the plaintiff and placed on record the newspaper cutting which is Ex PW 1/8. Further in para no 9 of the plaint it is averted that the legal notice served upon the defendant on 28.12.2006 through fax and speed post which is denied in the correspondence para of WS . The allegation qua the defamation is made in para no 6 of the plaint which is also denied and in reply to the para , in the WS it is contented that the answering defendant are not at all responsible for the letter being written by the Reader of the newspaper from the public at large. It is submitted that the letter cannot be treated and assumed as an article written by the Editor of the newspaper / defendant. Further, it is submitted/ admitted in the same para that the answering defendant has no intention to defame anyone and the letter in question is neither a news CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 11/18 -12- item /news story or the article written by the correspondent/ staff of newspaper or the Editor of the newspaper in column letter to Editor which are being sent by the Reader of newspaper. It is also averted that the same is not intentional and deliberate act on the part of the newspaper. Further plaintiff also examined Sh Sudhir Malhotra by way of affidavit which is Ex PW3/1 and relied upon the documents I.e computer generated statement of account Ex PW3/2, certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act is Ex PW3/3 in respect the quantum of loss or damages caused due to the defamation made in the newspaper.
On the other hand, defendant has examined one witness Sh Swadesh Bhushan Jain as DW1 by way of affidavit as EX DW 1/A. In para no 4 it is deposed / admitted that defendant no 1 work for gain at Plot No 2, Printing press complex, Wazirpur, New DTC Depot, Delhi35 and registered office of defendant no 2 is situated at Pucca Bagh, Civil Lines, Jalandhar , Punjab . The defendant no 2 is the proprietor of Punjab Kesari newspaper in which alleged letter of defendant no 3 was published in the column letter to Editor as such jurisdiction lies in District court, North West, Rohini.
After taking into consideration the evidence and pleadings led by the parties, I am of the considered view that it is established on record that the alleged defamation of the plaintiff has been published by the defendant in the newspaper Punjab Kesari and only defence which has been taken by CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 12/18 -13- the defendant is that there was no intention and deliberation on the part of defendant while publishing the letter of the Reader in its newspaper and during cross examination of DW1 it is admitted the following facts which are as under - Que: Before publishing a letter in the column 'aawaj a khabardar in the newspaper dated 27.12.2006', did you verify the truthness of the information or source received in what so manner ? Ans Aawaj a Khabardar is the column in the newspaper and is popularly called as Letter to Editor. This particular column is meant for highlighting and raising the grievances of the readers against various authorities and organization they are dealing with and no verification in such case is required to be done.
The letter which was sent for publication is not brought by me, neither filed on record, it being a very old document. It is wrong to suggest that the document is not filed in order to conceal the contents and the defamatory content has been published by manipulating the contents of the same.
Que Did you verify the personal details like address, parentage and status about the student ?
Ans As mentioned earlier no such inquiry has done. Vol. In case if this is for publication in awaj a khabardar column which has grievance and this also came from a student of institute.
CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 13/18 -14-It was written in the letter that the said person was a student of the plaintiff.
Que Do you have anything in support as literature or otherwise to substantiate that a publication in the column of aawaj a Khabardar and for publication in the column of general news; the criteria of verification is different ?
Ans There is no difference in verification of the news received for publication and verification in all such cases is done where it is necessary and required.
It is wrong to suggest that in the present case the scandalous and defamatory contents of the publication was not found to be necessary verified.
Que Is there any difference between 'news item' and 'news story' with the view point of readers?
Ans The news item are of general nature and the readers read them for that angle. As far as the letters to the editor are concerned, the grievances against organization, authorities and readers read them from their own angle and with their respective interest.
It is wrong to suggest that there is no distinction between news item and news story as per the readers of the newspaper are concerned. It is wrong to suggest that the present publication has been made more CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 14/18 -15- indicative for the readers with the heading of "aawaj a khabardar" with the intend to deliberately defame the plaintiff's company.
It is incorrect to say that we received the legal notice with the grievance of defamation to the plaintiff's company.
Que When you came to know about the allegation qua the defamation for the first time ?
Court observation Disallowed being matter of record.
We did not publish any corrigendum about the contents of letter to Editor (alleged defamation) in as much as the matter is already subjudice before the court. It is correct that even after receiving summons of the court, I/defendant company have not verified the contents of the letter/information which was published in the newspaper dated 27.12.2006. It is wrong to suggest that the alleged defamatory statement resulted in to tarnishing the image and reputation/goodwill of the company and caused huge financial loss due to short fall in the fresh admission and drop out of the students subsequent to the publication of the said news. It is wrong to suggest that is encroachment on article 19 (1)(a) of the defendant company. It is wrong to suggest that it is joint and several liability of all defendants to compensate the plaintiff for nominal damage of Rs. 5,05,000/. Que Is there any difference on account of verification of news between individual and companies before publishing a news in the CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 15/18 -16- newspaper of your company ?
Ans There is no difference.
It is wrong to suggest that I am manipulating my answers especially with respect to verification of news so as to suit my interest and my answers are not supported by any documentary proof. It is wrong to suggest that all the defendants have connived to defame the reputed plaintiff company with ill motive to cause financial and reputation loss. It is wrong to suggest that to increase our circulation of newspaper, the defendants take such illegal means to get popularized. It is wrong to suggest that defendant company has been totally irresponsible in publishing alleged derogatory and scandalous statement in the news published in the newspaper. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Hence, I am of the considered view that plaintiff is completely discharged the onus and proved the quantum of damages or loss incurred or caused due to publication of defamation of plaintiff institute through Ex PW1/8 and on records as clear from evidence, it is established that before publication the defendant did not verify the truthfulness or correctness of allegation made by defendant no 3 who is exparte here. Accordingly issue no 2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. ISSUE No. 1 : Whether the present suit is bad for non joinder and CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 16/18 -17- mis joinder of the necessary parties ? OPD The onus to discharge this issue has been casted upon the defendant. The issue has been framed on the basis of preliminary objection taken in the WS of defendant no 1 and 2 without mentioning who is the necessary party in the present case apart from defendant no 1 and 2, defendant no 3, Sh Sandeep who is Reader and writer of letter which was published by the defendant no 1 and 2 also made party and defendant no 3 was proceed ex parte on 06.11.2007. Moreover, in para no 4 it is deposed / admitted that defendant no 1 work for gain at Plot No 2, Printing press complex, Wazirpur, New DTC Depot, Delhi35 and registered office of defendant no 2 is situated at Pucca Bagh, Civil Lines, Jalandhar , Punjab . The defendant no 2 is the proprietor of Punjab Kesari newspaper in which alleged letter of defendant no 3 was published in the column letter to Editor as such jurisdiction lies in District court, North West, Rohini. Hence, I am of the considered view that defendant is completely failed to discharge the onus, accordingly issue no 1 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
13. RELIEF In the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. I am of the considered view that the CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 17/18 -18- plaintiff has proved its case as such plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent/ perpetual/ preventive injunction thus restraining defendants from editing, publishing, reporting, printing and circulating any defamatory, scandalous, libelous statement allegations against the plaintiff and also entitled to the decree of damages to the tune of Rs 5,05,000/ along with the cost of the suit. Accordingly, the present suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Original documents filed by the parties if any, and return to the parties after obtaining certified copy of the same against receipt. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 28.03.2018 (Rakesh KumarIV)
Additional District Judge06
West District, THC
CS No 607691/16 M/S Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs The Editor, Punjab Kesari & Ors Page 18/18