Delhi High Court - Orders
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Anr vs Karnjeet Kumar Singh & Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 301/2024 and I.A. 8517/2024, 8994/2024
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Senior Counsel,
with Mr. Amit Meharia, Mr. Abinash
Agarwal, Mr. Sambhav, Mr. Kamil
Khan & Ms. Tannishtha Singh, Advs.
(M: 9953676030)
versus
KARNJEET KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. for Google
LLC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 24.04.2024
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A.8994/2024 (for correction in appearance)
2. This is an application for correction of the appearance of the counsel for the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that due to a mix-up, certain names of the lawyers, who do not appear in this matter, were submitted. Accordingly, the appearance for the Plaintiffs on 16th April, 2024 shall now read as under:
"Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv.
Mr. Abinash Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Kamil Khan, Adv.
Mr. Sambhav, Adv."
3. Ordered accordingly. Application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 1 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:24 CS(OS) 301/2024 & 8517/2024 (for stay)
4. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and Mr. Amarjit Sahu (Deputy General Manager, IOCL) inter alia seeking damages and injunction against the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3- Karnjeet Kumar Singh, Sadhyata Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Sadhyata Pvt. Ltd. from publishing defamatory and disparaging videos and other content against IOCL, its officials and its business.
5. It is stated that IOCL is a Maharatna status public sector undertaking known for its operations in the hydrocarbon value chain, including refining. As per the plaint, the company is globally renowned for its reputation and undertakes various energy projects nationwide, frequently inviting bids for several projects. Plaintiff No. 2 is an officer employed in the IOCL.
6. In the present suit, the case of IOCL is that it awarded a contract for construction and infrastructure at its Paradip Refinery township to M/s Bhagaban Mohapatra Constructions & Engineers Private Limited on 10th August, 2019. Several months after the contract was awarded, BMCE subcontracted a part of the work to Sadhyata Projects Pvt. Ltd. According to the plaint, the said subcontract was not known to the IOCL. Later, disputes arose between BMCE and Sadhyata Projects Pvt. Ltd., leading to the termination of the subcontract in May 2021. Post the termination of the subcontract, Sadhyata Projects Pvt. Ltd. launched proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter, 'MSMED Act') against the IOCL, seeking recovery of certain amounts.
7. In this background, it is averred that the Defendants proceeded to publish defamatory statements specifically about IOCL, and its officials. As per the plaint, the Defendant No. 1 repeatedly made false and derogatory CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 2 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:24 statements to third parties and the media, aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the Plaintiffs and their employees. The Defendants' actions are evidenced by a series of emails sent on various dates in January, February, and March 2022. A note has been handed over to the Court displaying various instances where the Defendants are stated to have issued allegedly defamatory statements on various occasions, as well as on social media platforms. Some of the statements have been reproduced hereinbelow:
"...A big scam is going on in INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED....";
"This type of behaviour of the top most management of IOCL is careless and raises many questions on the management of IOCL."
"......Due to all these reasons most of the PSU of country are running in loss. There are several dishonest employees in most of PSU in present time of the country........"
"......Due to fraud by Sh. Amarjeet Sahu (DGM-PJ), Om Prakash (GM-PJ), Sh. Rajan Naik (CPM-PJ) and BMCEPL its Director we and our companies are facing bad behavior from several Central Govt....."
"tum jaise officers Ga..... mar lete hai startup ka."
".........Lekin meri ek bat yaad rakhna agar bhagwan hai toh sabhi bacche kuch na kar payege aur nayak charitrahin niklege........"
"IOCL ke officers dusta, harami, our badmash hain. Jab site par kam ho raha tha tab iocl officers kahan Marwa rahe the? Rahi baat deformation ka to karo iske liye kam IOCL ke offciers ke maa, bahan chode, jo karana hai karo bosari wale, ham darne wale nahi hain, tum jaise jandulog se."CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 3 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25
8. Defendant No. 1 is the director of multiple companies and is associated with Defendants No. 2 and 3, which are stated to be a holding companies.
9. Defendant No. 4 - Google LLC for YouTube, and Defendant No. 5- Meta Platform, Inc including Instagram and Facebook, are platforms where defamatory videos about the Plaintiffs have been uploaded and are required to take them down. Defendant No. 6-MeiTY is a proforma party, and Defendant No. 7 comprises unidentified social media account holders who also posted derogatory content.
10. On the last date i.e. on 16th April, 2024, the Court had perused some of the transcripts of content of videos and was of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the Defendant to make submissions in this matter.
11. However, upon an intimation of the present suit, the Defendant No.1- Karnjeet Kumar Singh has, at 9:46 pm last night, written the following email addressed to the Registrar General. The same is set out below:
"Sir/Madam, I, Karnjeet Kumar Singh, acknowledge the receipt of the notice regarding IA-8517/2024, which I received at 4:52 PM on 23.04.2024, summoning me to be present before the Hon'ble court on 24.04.2024, which is tomorrow. I must express my concern regarding the short notice provided for this appearance before the Hon'ble court in New Delhi.
Given the limited time frame, it is exceedingly -- challenging for me to arrange for my presence before the Hon'ble court on such short notice. Moreover, if the court proceeds with hearing IA-8517/2024 on 24.04.2024 without due consideration of the circumstances, it could be construed as unjust for me.CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 4 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25 I would like to emphasize that any statements made in the video concerning IOCL represent my freedom of speech and are within the bounds of my constitutional rights. Therefore, it is imperative that I am afforded ample opportunity to defend myself against the allegations raised in IA-8517/2024. Failure to provide such an opportunity would, once again, constitute injustice for me by the Registrar of Delhi.
I kindly request your understanding and cooperation in this matter, and I am open to discussing any alternative arrangements that may allow for a fair and just resolution."
12. As can be seen from the email, on behalf of the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, no submission has been made on merits except claiming that the right to free speech should be allowed to be exercised and sufficient time should be granted.
13. A perusal of the transcripts, as extracted above, would show that there are various derogatory and disparaging allegations have been made against the IOCL such as - "the scam of the country is the largest PSU company". Allegations are also being made against various officials and Government functionaries. In some content of the video, the allegations are also made against the legal consultants and lawyers.
14. Such indiscriminate use of language against the Plaintiffs or other employees of the Plaintiff No.1 including the lawyers and public functionaries, cannot be permitted, especially at the behest of a person, who appears to merely be having contractual disputes with the Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court in the decision in Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ((2023) 4 SCC 1) has held that freedom of speech under the CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25 Constitution does not give any individual unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory and unwarranted. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are extracted hereinbelow:
"250. While there are no infallible rules that can be formulated by the Court to define the precise threshold of acceptable speech, every citizen's conscious attempt to abide by the constitutional values, and to preserve in letter and spirit the culture contemplated under the Constitution will significantly contribute in eliminating instances of societal discord, friction and disharmony, on account of disparaging, vitriolic and derogatory speech, particularly when made by public functionaries and/or public figures. This does not in any way imply that ordinary citizens who form the great mass of the citizenry of this Country can shun responsibility for vitriolic, unnecessarily critical, diabolical speech, bordering on all those aspects mentioned under Article 19(2) either against public functionaries/figures or against other citizens in general or against particular individuals.
251. Every citizen of India must consciously be restrained in speech, and exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) only in the sense that it was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to be exercised. This is the true content of Article 19(1)(a) which does not vest with citizens unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory, unwarranted, have no redeeming purpose and which, in no way amount to a communication of ideas. Article 19(1)(a) vests a multi-faceted right, which protects several species of speech and expression from interference by the State. However, it is a no brainer that the right to freedom of speech and expression, in a human-rights based democracy does not protect statements made by a citizen, which strike at the dignity of a fellow citizen. Fraternity and equality which lie at the very base of CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 6 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25 our constitutional culture and upon which the superstructure of rights are built, do not permit such rights to be employed in a manner so as to attack the rights of another."
15. Under such circumstances, the following links are directed to be taken down by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 within 48 hours, failing which Google LLC shall take down these videos. If any other videos surface, which have the same content, the Plaintiff is permitted to communicate the same to Google LLC and the same shall be taken down. If there are any other similar or offending videos the Plaintiff is free to approach the Court. The links to be taken down are as follows:-
S. Video Title/Description Video Link
No.
1. Title - Start-up Facts in India. https://www.you
Description - The exploitation tube.com/watch
done by Large PSU to infant ?v=nf-LVKoI0ac
industries or start-up
companies.
IOCL is a Fraudulent
Company.
#iocl
2. Title - IOCL Fake Balance https://www.you
Sheet And Annual Report. tube.com/watch
Description - IOCL is a Biggest ?v=T2HR6FImfcg Fraudulent Company in India.
#iocl
3. Title - IOCL Fake Statement. https://www.you Description - IOCL Fake tube.com/watch Statement. ?v=83brBU2MCK CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 7 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25 #iocl 4
4. Title - Misconduction by ROC https://www.you Mumbai tube.com/watch Description - Misconduction ?v=nyMm0ow8X_ by ROC Mumbai regarding Q IOCL matter.
5. Title - Fake case running by https://www.you Odisha MSME Council. tube.com/watch Description - Fake case ?v=VqdGvmkP64 running by Odisha MSME Y Council.
6. Title - About Sadhyata Group of https://www.youtube.c Companies om/watch?v=AdL3dkt Upload Date - 27.03.2024 SqhI Channel - SADHYATA
16. Till the next date of hearing, the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are also restrained from uploading same or any similar videos consisting of defamatory and derogatory allegations against the Plaintiffs, its employees and other public functionaries.
17. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC qua Defendant Nos.1 to 3 be made within 48 hours.
18. List before the Joint Registrar on 8th July, 2024, the date already fixed.
19. List before the Court on 29th August, 2024.
CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 8 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25
20. Copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 24, 2024/dk/bh CS(OS) 301/2024 Page 9 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2024 at 04:47:25