Delhi District Court
Ankit Kalra vs K.N. Bhatia on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016
CNR No. DLSW010010262016
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANKIT KALRA
S/o Late Sh. D.N. Kalra
R/o Bairwa Bharati CGHS Ltd.,
Plot no. 24, Sector-12, Dwarka,
New Delhi. ........Plaintiff
Versus
K N BHATIA
S/o Late Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o Flat No. C-103, True Friends CGHS Ltd.,
Plot no. 29, Sector-6, Dwarka,
New Delhi. .......Defendant
Date of institution 11.08.2015
Date of reserving judgment 17.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment 16.05.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for recovery of damages/compensation ₹25,00,000/- on account of defamation. The brief facts of the case are:− PLAINT
1. The plaintiff is described as a person of repute and standing in society, having been elected as the Secretary of Bairwa Bharti CGHS Ltd., Sector-12, Dwarka (hereinafter referred to as "the CGHS"), on the strength of his reputation and social stature. He is a practising Chartered Accountant (CA), who has earned recognition and esteem among his professional peers owing to CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 1/26 his diligence and commitment. He is also a member of the prestigious Safdarjung Club and enjoys a strong social reputation among its members. The plaintiff is actively engaged in several social and charitable initiatives, including the installation of a 65- feet high statue of Lord Ganesha in Sector-12, Dwarka, and the rendering of services to underprivileged communities through a charitable organisation named M/s M.R. Charitable Trust. Additionally, he organises monthly langars providing meals to approximately 800-1000 individuals.
2. It is alleged that the defendant, motivated by malice and with the intent to defame the plaintiff, has repeatedly attempted to tarnish his image by spreading false and defamatory statements. These statements not only target the plaintiff but also seek to impugn the character of his deceased father, Shri D.N. Kalra, who passed away on 29.03.2013. The defendant, in a letter dated 27.01.2014 addressed to the Assistant Director of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), made baseless allegations using language such as: "...fraudulent activities by the former builder cum President D.N. Kalra, whose legacy of cheating is being continued by his son as builder cum Secretary..." and "...the fraud starts...".
3. It is stated that the statements made by the defendant are per se defamatory and have a tendency to lower the plaintiff's prestige and social standing in the eyes of right-thinking members of society, including but not limited to members of the CGHS. These statements were deliberately published and communicated to various authorities and were ultimately brought to the plaintiff's attention through the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, New Delhi.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 2/26
4. It is contended that the impugned statements are entirely false, unsubstantiated, and made with an intent to harm. As a direct consequence of these defamatory remarks, some employees of the plaintiff have resigned, believing the allegations to be true. Members of the CGHS have also begun to doubt the plaintiff's integrity and have directly questioned him regarding alleged fraudulent activities by him and his late father. Furthermore, certain clients have refrained from availing of the plaintiff's professional services, suspecting that he might engage in unethical practices. Socially, the plaintiff has experienced ostracisation, including avoidance by members of the Safdarjung Club.
5. The plaintiff avers that he and his family have suffered immense mental agony, harassment, and embarrassment due to these baseless and malicious allegations. He was compelled to explain the falsity of the claims to members of the CGHS in an attempt to mitigate the reputational damage caused.
6. On 05.01.2015, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant, demanding that he cease and desist from making such defamatory statements and tender an unconditional written apology. However, the defendant failed to comply with said notice.
7. Although the defendant refrained from publishing further written defamatory content post the issuance of legal notice, he continued to propagate false rumours concerning the plaintiff's alleged involvement in fraudulent and illegal activities, both within the CGHS and among his acquaintances. Owing to the sustained campaign of defamation, the plaintiff was eventually compelled to resign from his position as an office bearer of the CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 3/26 CGHS.
8. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking directions to the defendant to pay ₹25 lakhs as damages and compensation, to declare the letter dated 27.08.2014 as null and void, and to restrain the defendant from making any defamatory publication against the plaintiff. WRITTEN STATEMENT
9. The defendant has denied the averments made by the plaintiff. He contends that the plaintiff is engaged in illegal activities and claims that his letter dated 27.01.2014 was an attempt to expose certain irregularities. The defendant disputes the assertion that the plaintiff was elected as Secretary of the CGHS on the basis of merit or reputation. He asserts that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of becoming a member of the CGHS and describes him as a relatively young individual, aged approximately 29 years, who only qualified as a Chartered Accountant in January 2011. Accordingly, the defendant denies that the plaintiff has earned any substantial stature within the CA community. The defendant further alleges that the plaintiff is engaged in various business activities while simultaneously practising as a CA, which, according to him, violates the regulatory provisions governing the conduct of CAs. REPLICATION
10. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint.
ADMISSION-DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
11. The defendant admitted the letter dated 27.01.2014 as Ex D1.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 4/26 ISSUES
12. Vide order dated 19.05.2016, five issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor Court:
"1. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees? ...OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration, as prayed for in prayer(a)? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in compensation, if so, quantum of damages and compensation? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (c)? OPP
5. Relief."
EVIDENCE
13. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined seven witnesses:
13.1. The plaintiff entered the witness box as PW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex PW-1/A in evidence, which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He relied on the following documents:
S. Document Marked as No. 1. Copy of his CA certificate Ex PW1/1 2. Photographs of the statue of Lord Ganesha Ex PW1/2
3. Copy of letter of defendant and legal notice Ex PW1/3 and to the defendant with postal receipts, etc Ex PW1/4 13.2. PW2 Saurav Aggarwal and PW5 Anuj Bali tendered their respective affidavits in evidence, Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW5/A. They deposed that they had engaged the plaintiff for tax and corporate consultancy services during the period 2011-2014.
Subsequently, they came to learn through certain acquaintances that the plaintiff was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities, CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 5/26 and that the defendant had addressed letters to various governmental authorities highlighting the same. Upon acquiring such information, they chose to terminate their professional association with the plaintiff.
13.3. PW3 Kanti Prasad Pandey tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that the plaintiff is a kind- hearted and religious individual, enjoying a good reputation in society. He further stated that the plaintiff's late father, Shri D.N. Kalra, was instrumental in the construction of the Shri Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Sector-12, Dwarka, where the plaintiff later installed a 65-feet high statue of Lord Ganesha. PW3 endorsed the plaintiff's social work and stated that several members of the CGHS visited the temple. He testified that certain members conveyed to him that the plaintiff was involved in numerous fraudulent activities, and that the defendant was reportedly unearthing such malpractices, with potential legal consequences for the plaintiff. On making inquiries, the plaintiff informed him that the defendant was fabricating false narratives. 13.4. PW4 Sunil Gupta tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.
PW4/A. He stated that he had been associated with the plaintiff for the past 13 years. In essence, PW4 deposed that some members of the CGHS questioned him about the plaintiff's alleged fraudulent conduct and showed him a letter purportedly written by the defendant. He responded by informing them that the defendant had made baseless allegations against the plaintiff due to a property-related dispute involving the defendant's son and daughter-in-law. PW4 further stated that he showed the members a copy of the plaintiff's PAN card and application form indicating the plaintiff's date of birth as 03.06.1986. He also CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 6/26 clarified that the allotments in the cases of Anil Kumar and Abhishek Kalra were made in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the allotment to Anil Bhatia was also in order.
{During the examination-in-chief of PW4, learned counsel for the plaintiff objected to the exhibition of documents Ex. PW4/A to Ex. PW4/4. On 18.03.2019, learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterated that said documents ought not to have been introduced without prior permission of the Court. Vide order dated 02.04.2019, the learned Predecessor Court held that the said objection would be considered at the stage of final arguments. Upon hearing both parties on the issue, and being informed that the documents in question were certified copies of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, judicial notice was taken thereof and the objection was overruled.} 13.5. PW6, an official from the Sub-Registrar's Office, proved the registration of the sale deed in favour of Shri Anil Kumar Bhatia as Ex. PW6/B and the sale deed executed by him as Ex. PW6/A. 13.6. PW7, an official from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), proved the details of allotment related to membership no. 349, as Ex. PW7/A.
14. The defendant examined two witnesses in his support:
14.1. The defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex DW1/A, which is on the lines of his written statement.
14.2. DW2/Sachin Bhatia, who is the son of the defendant, tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW2/A. He deposed that the defendant had informed him that the subject letter was written solely to prompt an inquiry by the appropriate authorities and not with any intent to malign or defame the plaintiff. He further stated that the defendant did not circulate the said letter, CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 7/26 nor did he write any additional letters apart from the one in question.
FINDINGS
15. I have heard Ms. Samriddhi Arora, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Rahul Bakshi, Ld Counsel for the defendant.
16. Issue-wise findings are as under:
17. "1. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees? ...OPD"
17.1. The onus of proof with respect to this issue rested upon the defendant. The plaintiff has sought reliefs in the form of damages/compensation to the tune of ₹25,00,000, a declaratory relief concerning the impugned letter, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff has valued these reliefs at ₹25,00,000, ₹200, and ₹1,000 respectively. In accordance with the said valuations, the plaintiff has paid a cumulative court fee amounting to ₹27,200.
17.2. Upon examination, there appears to be no defect or irregularity in the valuation of the suit, either for the purposes of court fee or for determination of jurisdiction. 17.3. This issue is accordingly, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
18. "2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration, as prayed for in prayer(a)? OPP"
"3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in compensation, if so, quantum of damages and compensation?
OPP"
and "4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (c)? OPP"
18.1. The issues under consideration are interrelated in nature CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 8/26 and, therefore, are being adjudicated upon collectively. 18.2. It is pertinent to note that, while the law governing criminal defamation is codified under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, there exists no codified statute specifically addressing civil defamation in India. Consequently, reliance is placed on the principles derived from English common law, under which civil defamation is classified into two categories: libel and slander. Defamation in written or published form is termed libel, whereas defamation conveyed through spoken words is termed slander.
18.3. In the present matter, the plaintiff has alleged both forms of defamation--libel in the form of a written letter dated 27.08.2014, and slander in the form of oral rumours allegedly spread on unspecified dates.
18.4. Accordingly, the plaintiff is required to establish the following elements:
a) That the statements contained in the letter dated 27.08.2014 were authored by the defendant,
b) That the defendant disseminated rumours among the members of the CGHS and the plaintiff's acquaintances, alleging the commission of fraud and other illegal activities,
c) That the statements made referred specifically to the plaintiff,
d) That such statements were published or otherwise made known to third parties, and
e) That the statements were defamatory in nature.
18.5. The defendant has unequivocally admitted to the authorship of the letter dated 27.08.2014, which is Ex. D1. 18.6. The letter in question admittedly pertains to the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 9/26 The defendant has justified the writing of the letter on the grounds that it was intended to alert the appropriate authorities to certain alleged illegalities committed by the plaintiff. The defences raised by the defendant are those of truth, fair comment, and qualified privilege.
18.7. However, it is considered necessary to note that the entirety of the contents of Ex. D1 do not relate exclusively to the plaintiff. For the sake of clarity and proper appreciation, the contents of the letter Ex. D1 are reproduced herein below:
"Wednesday, August 27, 201407:46:14 AM To, Asstt. Director Group Housing Society DDA Vikas Sadan INA Sub: FAUDULENT ACTIVITIES IN A GROUP HOUSIN... SOCIETY DURING THE DRAW OF FLATS!! Dear Sir, With warm regards I want to bring to your kind NOTICE some of the faudulent activities by the former BUILDER CUM PRESIDENT a D N KALRA Whose legacy of CHEATING is being continued by his son as BUILDER CUM SECRETARY OF "BAIRWA BHARTI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY" SECTOR 12 PLOT NO 24 DWARKA - 110075 CLASSIC APARTMENTS THE FRAUD STARTS:
b FATHER SON BOTH MEMBER IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.
FATHER: D N KALRA MEMBERSHIP. NO 238 ENROLMENT DATE 18 Jan 1997 ADDRESS: B-4/200 Safderjung Enclave N Delhi 29 ANKIT KALRA SON OF DN KALRA MEMBERSHIP NO 344 ENROLMENT DATE 8 June 2004 at the time of enrolment he was c only 15yr and 6 months as per his election card age Photocopy attached. Same ADDRESS B-4/200 Safderjung Enclave N Delhi 29 Anil Kumar MEMBERSHIP. NO 384 WAS NOT IN PROPOSED d MEMBERS FOR DRAW IN THE LIST SENT BY RCS TO DDA AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE SITE OF RCS DELHI. HE GOT CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 10/26 DRAW FOR FLAT NO B 505 CATEGORY C FROM DDA HOW THIS BLUNDER OCCURED?
Abhishekh Kalra MEMBERSHIP NO 385 SAME CASE AS e ABOVE NOT IN PROPOSED LIST ÁND GOT DRAW OF FLAT NO B-405 FROM DDA. ATTACHMENT ATTACHED.
ANIL BHATIA MEMBERSHIP NQ 349 GOT DRAW FROM DDA FOR FLAT NO A-103 HOW COULD HE CONVERT FLAT OF CATEGORY "AA" TO CATEGORY "A" FLAT NO A-703 OR f HOW COULD HE BUY THIS FLAT UNDER SAME MEMBERSHIP? WHAT IS THE STATUS OF FREEHOLD? CAN THIS BE DONE AS PER DDA NORMS OR FOR THAT MATTER BY RCS RULES? ATTACHMENTS ATTACHED.
Copy:- (signed)
1. Lt. Governor Delhi K.N. BHATIA
2. Vice Chairman DDA R/o ......"
18.8. A perusal of the letter Ex. D1 reveals that, although the defendant has devoted the initial paragraphs (paragraphs 'a' to 'c') to making assertions concerning the plaintiff, the subsequent paragraphs (paragraphs 'd' to 'f') do not pertain to the plaintiff.
Notably, the defendant has not alleged that the plaintiff had any involvement in the allotments discussed in those latter paragraphs.
18.9. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention to the cross-examination of DW1 conducted on 18.03.2024, wherein the defendant admitted to having alleged, in paragraph 'e' of the letter, that the allotment to Mr. Abhishek Kalra was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff and his late father. However, in an action for defamation, the critical factor is the content that is actually conveyed or published by the defendant-- not the subjective thoughts or beliefs he may have harboured. Even if the defendant internally believed that the allotments referenced in paragraphs 'd' to 'f' were secured through the involvement of the plaintiff or his father, there is no express or CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 11/26 implied assertion in the text of Ex. D1 attributing those actions to them. The letter primarily raises concerns about alleged irregularities in allotments and questions the applicable norms and procedures followed by the DDA, without specifically imputing culpability to the plaintiff or his father in those instances.
18.10. Accordingly, for the purpose of adjudication, only the contents of paragraphs 'a' to 'c' of Ex. D1 are being considered in this judgment.
18.11. The most fundamental requirement in a claim for defamation is the publication of the allegedly defamatory material. Unless the impugned statement is communicated to at least one person other than the person defamed, no claim for damage to reputation can be sustained.
18.12. In the present case, the letter Ex. D1 was addressed to the Assistant Director, DDA, and appears to have been further forwarded to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi as well as the Vice Chairman, DDA. The defendant has admitted to having posted the said letter to these authorities and, additionally, to the Sub-Registrar (?). Therefore, the requirement of publication stands satisfied in this case.
18.13. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the contents of Ex. D1, specifically paragraphs 'a' to 'c', are defamatory in nature.
18.14. A statement is considered defamatory if it is calculated to expose the person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or if it causes injury to the person's trade, business, or professional reputation, or subjects the person to social exclusion or avoidance within the community.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 12/26 18.15. In the celebrated case of Sim v Stretch, [1936] 2 All ER 1237, Lord Atkin laid down the test which is often cited as 'Atkin Test' for determining defamation. Lord Atkin observed:
"Judges and text-book writers alike have found difficulty in defining with precision the word "defamatory." The conventional phrase exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt is probably too narrow. The question is complicated by having to consider the person, or class of persons, whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words used. I do not intend to ask your Lordships to lay down a formal definition, but after collating the opinions of many authorities I propose, in the present case, the test : Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right- thinking members of society generally?"
18.16. A right thinking man is a reasonable man who is neither unusually suspicious nor unusually naive and he does not always interpret the meaning of words as in case of a lawyer since he is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of construction. 18.17. Similarly in Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd. (1934) 50 TLR 581,CA, Lord Justice Slesser stated:
"...not only is a matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt, by reason of some moral discredit on her part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff shunned or avoided and without any moral discredit or her behalf."
18.18. The plaintiff has deposed that the letter Ex. D1 eventually reached the CGHS and was thereafter communicated to him through the Office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies. However, in the context of a defamation claim, it is well established that an individual's reputation cannot be diminished in their own estimation. Therefore, to constitute actionable defamation, the impugned material must have been communicated to a right-thinking member of society--other than the plaintiff himself--such that it lowered the plaintiff's reputation in their eyes.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 13/26 18.19. There is, however, no evidence on record to establish that the letter Ex. D1 was ever forwarded by any of the authorities to whom it was originally addressed--namely, the Assistant Director, DDA, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; the Vice Chairman, DDA, or the Registrar Cooperative Societies--to the CGHS. No official from the CGHS has been called to depose in this regard, nor has any resident of the CGHS been examined to affirm that such a letter was received by the society. 18.20. Notably, among the seven witnesses examined by the plaintiff, none is a resident of the CGHS who could confirm having read the letter Ex. D1, or having been apprised of the purported irregularities by the defendant, leading to a diminished view of the plaintiff's character. Similarly, no friend of the plaintiff from the Safdarjung Club has been examined to establish that either the letter or the alleged rumours reached them, resulting in social alienation of the plaintiff. There is likewise no evidence to support the assertion that any employees of the plaintiff left their employment due to knowledge of the letter or the said rumours.
18.21. The plaintiff has relied upon the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 to assert that certain clients terminated their professional engagements with him upon learning of the defamatory content. However, both PW2 and PW5 merely deposed that they came to know "through some acquaintances" that the plaintiff was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities and that the defendant had written letters to various government authorities in this regard. Admittedly, neither of these witnesses had personally read the letter Ex. D1.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 14/26 18.22. PW2 specifically admitted that he was unaware whether the CGHS had ever received any defamatory letter from the defendant. He stated that his information was based on hearsay from one Mr. Mayank Tripathi, a friend of the plaintiff, and Mr. Prem Parmar, an employee of the plaintiff.
Likewise, PW5 admitted that he too was unaware of whether the CGHS had received the impugned letter. He stated that he was informed of the plaintiff's alleged involvement in fraudulent activities by one Ms. Bhavya Sharma, a staff member.
However, none of these individuals--Mayank Tripathi, Prem Parmar, or Bhavya Sharma--were produced as witnesses to corroborate that they had read Ex. D1 or had independent knowledge of its contents. Furthermore, none of them had any direct connection either with the CGHS, where the defamatory rumours were allegedly spread, or with the government offices to which the letter was addressed.
18.23. Apart from the lack of evidence of publication, the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 with regard to the severance of their professional relationship with the plaintiff also appear to be unconvincing. Both witnesses claimed to have engaged the plaintiff for professional services during the years 2011 to 2014, and that they later disengaged him after hearing rumours concerning the contents of the alleged defamatory letter. However, neither of the witnesses produced a single document prepared by the plaintiff--such as balance sheets, profit and loss statements, tax audits, or any other professional output--that would substantiate their claim of having availed his services. Given that the plaintiff is a practising CA, it is expected that some documentation would have been generated during a four-
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 15/26 year professional engagement. Instead, both witnesses relied solely on fee invoices purportedly issued by the plaintiff, claiming all payments were made in cash.
18.24. Moreover, their testimonies are rendered further questionable by the fact that, although they allegedly severed professional ties with the plaintiff based on mere rumours, they nevertheless chose to depose in his favour upon request (they were not summoned witnesses). In view of these inconsistencies and omissions, this Court finds it difficult to place any significant reliance on the testimonies of PW2 and PW5.
18.25. PW3 deposed regarding the charitable and religious activities undertaken by the plaintiff. However, he too had not read the letter Ex. D1. He merely stated that some members of the CGHS, while visiting Shri Siddhi Vinayak Temple, had conveyed to him that the plaintiff was involved in fraudulent activities. Notably, he did not name any such member. As already observed, not a single member of the CGHS has been examined to establish that any such conversation or rumours were circulated within the CGHS regarding the plaintiff's alleged fraudulent conduct.
18.26. PW4, in a similar vein, testified that certain members of the CGHS had informed him about the plaintiff's alleged fraudulent activities. However, when questioned, he too failed to name any specific individual. That said, PW4 is the only witness who claimed to have actually read the letter Ex. D1. 18.27. Despite this assertion, the testimony of PW4 does not inspire confidence and is not considered reliable by this Court for the following reasons:
18.28. First, PW4 is not a resident of the CGHS, and his access CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 16/26 to the letter Ex. D1 remains doubtful. He claimed to have been handling the accounts of the CGHS but did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his employment or association with the CGHS.
18.29. Second, PW4 stated that a member of the CGHS showed him the letter Ex. D1, but he was unable to identify or name this person. If indeed he was associated with the CGHS in a professional capacity, as claimed, it is reasonable to expect that he would be able to name the resident who provided him access to the document or made the relevant allegations. 18.30. Third, PW4 appears to be an interested witness. He admitted to having been associated with the plaintiff and his father since 2004. His testimony revealed an unusual level of personal involvement, including carrying a copy of the plaintiff's PAN card and membership application form to the CGHS--
documents for which he offered no plausible explanation for possessing. Moreover, PW4 went so far as to attempt to justify the allotments made in favour of Anil Kumar, Abhishek Kalra, and Anil Bhatia, purportedly on the basis of orders passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which he claimed to have obtained in certified copy form. The degree of familiarity and advocacy shown in his affidavit suggests that it was tailored to support the plaintiff's case.
This impression is further strengthened by his admission that the Administrator appointed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had filed a complaint seeking the registration of an FIR against him for causing financial loss to the CGHS. Notably, the same Administrator had also issued the expulsion notice Ex. PW1/DZ to the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 17/26 18.31. Learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the defence of privilege applies in the present case, as the letter Ex. D1 was addressed to public authorities having control and oversight over the allotment of flats. He has further emphasised that there is no evidence to suggest that the said letter was ever disseminated beyond these official channels. Reliance is placed on the case of Pankaj Oswal through Sanjay Wall vs Vikas Pahwa, 2023 III AD (Delhi) 418 and C. Sunil Kumar Reddy vs The State of AP 2022: APHC:4719.
However, I am unable to fully agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant. The Assistant Director, DDA is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial authority. Accordingly, any communication made to him is not protected by absolute privilege. Nonetheless, the defendant may still invoke the defence of qualified privilege, subject to fulfilling the requisite conditions in law.
18.32. It is now pertinent to examine the contents of letter Ex. D1 in light of the defences raised by the defendant. 18.33. The defendant has raised the plea of truth as a defence. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300, wherein the Court elaborated upon the various defences available in a suit for defamation as follows:
"95. Traditional defenses to an action for defamation have now become fairly crystallized and can be compartmentalized in 3 compartments : truth, fair comment and privilege. Truth, or justification, is a complete defense. The standard of proof of truth is not absolute but is limited to establishing that what was spoken was 'substantially correct'. Fair comment offers protection for the expression of opinions. Standard of proof is not that the Court has to agree with the opinion, but is limited to determine whether the views could honestly have been held by a CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 18/26 fair-minded person on facts known at the time. Unlike defense of truth, defense based on fair comment can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defamer acted with malice. Similar is the situation where the defense is of qualified privilege. Privilege is designed to protect expression made for the public good. Protection of qualified privilege is lost if actual malice is established. In public interest, absolute privilege is a complete defense..."
18.34. The letter Ex. D1 alleges that the plaintiff, in his capacity as Secretary of the CGHS, was involved in fraudulent activities which were initially perpetrated by his father, who held the position of President of the CGHS. It further states that both the plaintiff and his father were members of the CGHS. The letter also claims that, as per the plaintiff's voter identity card, he was only 15 years and 6 months old when he became a member on 08.06.2004.
18.35. The plaintiff has not disputed the fact that both he and his father were members and office bearers of the CGHS. He has also not denied having become a member on 08.06.2004; in fact, he admitted that he became a member sometime in 2003-04. Further, the plaintiff did not produce his voter identity card to refute the allegation concerning his age as recorded therein. 18.36. Learned counsel for the defendant contended that while the plaintiff produced other documents--such as his passport, PAN card, and Aadhaar card--to demonstrate that his date of birth was 03.06.1986, he conspicuously failed to produce his voter identity card. This, it was argued, indicates that the age mentioned therein was indeed different from the stated date of birth.
18.37. Conversely, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had brought all documents that he was required to produce during his cross-examination and that it was incumbent CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 19/26 upon the defendant to produce the voter identity card, especially since the letter Ex. D1 itself states that a copy of the voter identity card was annexed thereto.
18.38. I find merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the defendant. It is a settled principle of evidence that the burden of proof lies upon the party who would fail if no evidence were led by either side, as per Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this context, the onus was on the plaintiff to disprove the contents of the letter. The plaintiff neither denied nor rebutted the specific facts set out in paragraphs a to c of the letter Ex. D1. It was not incumbent upon the defendant to first prove his defences before the plaintiff had discharged his primary burden of showing that the impugned statements were false and malicious. 18.39. Moreover, the defendant did not categorically assert that the plaintiff was 15 years and 6 months old when he obtained membership; rather, he stated that the plaintiff's age was recorded as such in the voter identity card. The voter identity card is a basic and widely held document, and it is reasonable to presume that the plaintiff had possession of the same. The simplest method of rebutting this claim was for the plaintiff to produce the said card; his failure to do so invites an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits such an inference where evidence within a party's control is withheld without justification.
18.40. Accordingly, I find that the defendant has demonstrated that the statements contained in paragraphs a to c of the letter Ex. D1 were substantially true.
18.41. In addition to the defence of truth, the defendant has also invoked the defence of fair comment.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 20/26 18.42. In Tushar Kanti Ghosh v. Bina Bhowmic, 1953 CWN 378, the defence of fair comment has been explained as-
"(a) the comment must be fair in the sense that it must be honest and reasonably warranted by such facts;
(b) having stated the facts truly, some observations by way of comment may be added provided they consist an inference which might legitimately be drawn from the facts stated, and
(c) the exaggerations would be excused only if it is merely an excess of severity short of violent inventive and cannot take the form of an addition of untrue facts."
18.43. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that any act undertaken without due care and attention cannot be deemed to have been done in good faith. It is submitted that the defendant was specifically questioned as to whether he had verified the alleged bogus allotments prior to publishing the letter Ex. D1, to which he responded in the negative. It is contended that a publication made without conducting any inquiry and based on flimsy grounds cannot be protected as a defence in a defamation action. Reliance has been placed on the cases of M.C. Verghese vs TJ Ponnan, 1970 AIR 1876, Major General MS Ahluwalia vs Tehelka.com, 2023:DHC:5073, Harbhajan Singh vs The State of Punjab & another, 1961 CRILJ 710, Subramanian Swamy vs UOI decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 13.05.2016 and Superintendent & Anr vs Poorna Chandra Ghosh AIR 1924 CAL
611. 18.44. On the contrary, learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon Romesh Roy v. The King, AIR 1952 Cal 228 and Asis Kumar Saha & Ors v. The State of West Bengal, MANU/WB/0363/2010, to contend that the requirement of making a statement in good faith does not necessitate proving the absolute truth of the allegations. It suffices if the defendant demonstrates that he had reasonable grounds to believe the CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 21/26 statements to be true, and that in such belief, he addressed the complaint to a competent authority.
18.45. Learned counsel for the defendant has further argued that the plaintiff was served with an expulsion notice by the Administrator appointed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and that a complaint was also filed against him, Ex. PW1/DY. However, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the existence of good faith must be assessed with reference to the facts and circumstances as they existed on the date of publication, and cannot be inferred retrospectively based on documents generated at a later stage.
Accordingly, I do not consider these documents relevant for assessing the defences of truth or fair comment, as they post-date both the publication of the letter and the filing of the present suit. 18.46. Nevertheless, I am of the considered view that in light of the plaintiff's failure to deny the facts stated in paragraphs a to c of the letter Ex. D1, the Court's inquiry must now be confined to examining whether the comment made by the defendant was fairly and reasonably drawn from those facts, and whether such comment was made bona fide and in the public interest. 18.47. The principles governing the defence of fair comment have been succinctly enunciated in the case of Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd. and another, (1958) 2 All ER 516:
"I have been referring, and counsel in their speeches to you have been referring, to fair comment, because that is the technical name which is given to this defense, or, as I should prefer to say, which is given to the right of every citizen to comment on matters of public interest. The expression "fair comment" is a little misleading. It may give the impression that you, the jury, have to decide whether you agree with the comment, whether you think that it is fair. If that were the question which you had to decide, you realise that the limits of freedom which the law allows would be greatly curtailed. People are entitled to hold CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 22/26 and to express freely on matters of public interest strong views, views which some of you, or indeed all of you, may think are exaggerated, obstinate, or prejudiced, provided- and this is the important thing-they are views which they honestly hold. The basis of our public life is that the crank, the enthusiast, may say what he honestly thinks just as much as the reasonable man or woman who sits on a jury, and it would be a sad day for freedom of speech in this country if a jury were to apply the test of whether it agrees with the comment instead of applying the true test: was this an opinion, however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, which was honestly held by the writer?"
18.48. Therefore, learned counsel for the defendant has rightly contended that the pivotal question is not whether the comments made were objectively 'fair,' but whether the defendant honestly held such a belief.
18.49. Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, no person is eligible for admission as a member of a cooperative society if he, his spouse, or dependent children own a residential house within the Union Territory of Delhi. Furthermore, should a member subsequently incur any such disqualification, he is deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date such disqualification arose.
18.50. Given that the plaintiff has failed to rebut the assertion that his voter identity card indicated his age as 15 years and 6 months at the time of membership, I find that the defendant could reasonably have entertained the view that there existed irregularities when both the plaintiff and his father simultaneously continued as members and office bearers of the CGHS. While the language employed by the defendant may have been harsh and coarse, it was nonetheless legitimate for him to hold the opinion that such circumstances implied the making of false statements or misrepresentations by the plaintiff and/or his father in obtaining such membership.
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 23/26 18.51. An analogy may be drawn from the judgment in India Skills Pvt Ltd v. Neeraj Kumar Pathak & Anr, 2023:DHC:3846- DB, relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, this judgment does not support the plaintiff's case. In India Skills (supra), the appellant company alleged defamation against the respondents, who were its coordinators. The respondents, awaiting payment of dues which remained unpaid, sent emails and text messages accusing the appellant company of fraud, unprofessionalism, making false promises, poor management, cheating more than twenty individuals, and cautioned others to verify before engaging with the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on the basis that the appellant failed to establish that the respondents' statements were false or defamatory. Upon appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding as follows:
"47. It has been contended that neither the respondents had filed Written Statement nor cross-examined the witnesses and thus the onus of proving that there were any outstanding amounts was on the respondents which has not been discharged. However, the burden of proving the case was initially on the appellant and only if it was able to discharge such initial burden, would the onus have shifted on the respondents. From the emails as reproduced above, there is no denial by the appellant that the amounts as claimed were not due and thus, it cannot be said that the claims of the respondents or the averments made by the respondents in the emails were false."
18.52. At this stage, it may also be profitable to refer to the case of M/s. Radha Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Pandaul Co- Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 6299, wherein the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta observed:
"The question as to whether a statement is defamatory includes the question as to whether a "right thinking person" would see the statement as such. In order to found an action for libel, the statement complained off should be false in a written form and should contain defamatory content and should be published. The CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 24/26 desire to injure must be the dominated motive for the defamatory publication to defeat any defence of privilege or justification. In a civil action for defamation truth of the defamatory matter is a complete defence. The principle is that "the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not or ought not to possess". The burden of proof, however, rests on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, and though it is not necessary that the statement is literally true, he must prove it is as a whole substantially true."
18.53. The fact that the defendant addressed the letter solely to government authorities to report a potential violation of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, without circulating it to any other persons, indicates that his intention was bona fide. The plaintiff himself admitted that subsequent to the letter Ex D1, the defendant refrained from publishing any further libellous material. While the plaintiff alleges that the defendant engaged in slander by spreading rumours about him, as noted above, none of the plaintiff's witnesses were able to substantiate such claims. The defendant may have held an exaggerated opinion of the plaintiff, but he was essentially seeking enforcement of rules designed to ensure the democratic functioning of cooperative societies. Although it was argued that litigations exist between the families of the parties, none were referenced in the letter Ex D1, nor is there any evidence on record to show that such litigations had been initiated prior to the publication of the letter Ex D1. The letter Ex D1 was evidently sent in the public interest and does not appear to have been motivated by malice. 18.54. Accordingly, I hold that the defendant has successfully established the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege. 18.55. It is therefore, held that the statement/letter Ex D1, made and published by the defendant, was not defamatory towards the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove the allegation of CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 25/26 slander.
18.56. Resultantly, no declaration, damages, or injunction, as prayed for, can be granted to the plaintiff.
18.57. Issue no. 2, 3 and 4 are accordingly decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
19. "5. Relief."
19.1. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2025.05.15
SOLANKI 18:02:47 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 16th May, 2025 District Judge-02
South-West District
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ ADJ No. 515868/2016 Ankit Kalra vs. K.N. Bhatia Page no. 26/26