Bangalore District Court
Bangalore Baptist Hospital vs K.Muniraju on 3 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU
(CCH-20)
Present:
Sri.D.S.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 3rd day of July 2021.
O.S.No.26137/2011
Plaintiff: Bangalore Baptist Hospital,
A Society registered under the
Karnataka Societies Registration
Act, 1960, Bellary Road, Hebbal,
Bangalore-560 024,
Represented by its Legal officer,
Smt.Nirupama Patil,
Wife of Appanah Sooraiah,
Aged about 42 years.
[By Sri.CKH-Advocate]
Vs.
Defendant:- K.Muniraju,
Son of Late Sri.Kenchappa,
Aged about 63 years,
and R/a. No.432, 'Asha Geetha
Nilaya', 1st Main 1st Cross,
Shivashankara Block, Hebbal
Bangalore-560 024
[By Sri.N.T.G-Adv.]
1
OS No.26137/2011
Date of Institution of suit: 02.07.2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
Pronote, Suit for
Declaration and Injunction & recovery
Possession, Suit for of damage Suit
Injunction, etc.):
Date of Commencement of
recording of evidence: 12.07.2018
Date on which the
Judgment was 03.07.2021
pronounced:
Total Duration:
Years Months Days
10 00 01
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)
XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge
Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
2
OS No.26137/2011
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff-Bangalore Baptist Hospital has instituted this suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant or anybody claiming under him from making any defamatory statements, either as slander or libel or innuendo, against the plaintiff or its institutions or its employees or any person associated with it; and for direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages to the plaintiff; and for costs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:-
Plaintiff is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It owns, runs and manages a Hospital known as Bangalore 3 OS No.26137/2011 Baptist Hospital. Plaintiff is Registered under Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. It is a super specialty Hospital which caters to the health care needs of the population in Bengalore, without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, sex, place of birth or any of them. It is doing yeomen service to the poor and is one of the foremost charitable hospitals in Bangalore. It provides free and concessional care to a significant number of poor people. But, charges nominal for private patients to cross-subsidize the benefits benefits given to the poor patients. In the late 1960 plaintiff Hospital was established by the Indian Baptist Mission of the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention having its office in the USA. After completing 38 years of successful running of the Hospital, it recently published a souvenir to commemorate its achievement in 4 OS No.26137/2011 providing quality health care to the masses. On this occasion Her Excellency President of the then India Mrs. Prathiba Patil,, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, President of AICC, Dr.M.Veerappa Moily, Union Cabinet Minister for Law, His Excellency Governor of Karnataka Sri.H.R.Bhardwaj and Dr.B.S.Yedyurappa-Chief Minister of Karnataka extended their wishes and recognized the fact that the Hospital has been providing yeoman services to the masses. Cabinet Minister for Haj and Wakf and Minority Welfare, Karnataka Prof.K.Mumtaz Ali Khan has detailed the manner in which the Hospital has been providing health care for the last several decades. Plaintiff has 858 employees on its rolls who are all equally committed towards the cause and purpose of the Hospital. Defendant being an employee of the plaintiff started vitiating the peaceful atmosphere and tranquility of the hospital. Defendant has 5 OS No.26137/2011 caused damage to the blemish less reputation of the plaintiff due to his libelous and slanderous statements. He was initially appointed in the live stock department in the year 1980. Over the years, he was promoted and was working as Senior Office Attendant-3 in the Medical Records Department of the Hospital. During 1982 defendant's services were duly terminated for having stolen some gunny bags from the Cow shed of the Hospital during working hours. Defendant approached the Labour Court against the plaintiff, but afterwards said case was withdrawn. Later he was reinstated to employment with 50% of back wages in the year 1983 on an undertaking given that he would conduct himself in a proper manner and discharge his duties. During 2008, defendant had obtained medical treatment at Wockhardt Hospital for certain heart ailment and in connection thereof he 6 OS No.26137/2011 had been charged by the said Hospital a sum of Rs.2,31,925/- as he had obtained treatment in a special private ward. Nevertheless, defendant requested through letters dated 24.06.2008 and 30.01.2009 that the plaintiff should make payment.
Plaintiff was not obliged to make payment under the Rules and Norms. But, out of sympathetic consideration had agreed to bear and pay entire bill on the condition that he should pay said amount to the plaintiff in installments from out of his salary. Plaintiff is accordingly making deductions every month. Plaintiff Hospital extended support and also gave Staff Welfare Fund, General Loan, Staff contributions as per the Hospital policies Loan was under recovery by way of salary deductions as per defendant's consent and as per the Hospital policies and norms. Defendant was always in the habit of getting admitted to a higher and special 7 OS No.26137/2011 private ward far beyond his financial means and capacity for treatment than the stipulated category for him. This issue of payment was resolved by the Grievance Committee and was communicated to the defendant vide letter dtd.04.06.2020. Defendant all of a sudden absented himself unauthorizedly from his duties in the month of March, 2010. Show cause notices were served and consequential inquiry proceedings were initiated against him. Defendant was found guilty of charges and minor penalty of 4 days of suspension without pay was imposed on the defendant in accordance with the Employees Service Rules of the Hospital. Defendant thereafter wanted the plaintiff to bear entire cost of his medical treatment incurred at Wockhardt Hospital. This is impermissible in accordance with the Employees Service Rules. Hence, plaintiff declined said request. Defendant 8 OS No.26137/2011 thereafter started making false, baseless and wild allegations against the plaintiff. On 19.06.2010 defendant addressed a letter to Dr. Alexander Thomas-Director (CEO) of the Hospital making allegations against the plaintiff stating that he was not given proper care at the hospital and he has been denied finances and health by the plaintiff, with an intention to tarnish plaintiff's reputation, fair name and standing in Bengaluru, made malicious and false statements that plaintiff is 'anti Hindus', 'anti Kannadigas' and 'anti schedule caste'. Specific false and libelous allegations were made against the members of the Grievance committee of the Hospital who had examined his request for payment of his medical bills. Defendant on 19.07.2010 made further false and defamatory allegations by making certain demands against the plaintiff without any basis. Defendant made 9 OS No.26137/2011 representation to the Chairman of the National Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Bengaluru on 12.7.2010 making false allegations that plaintiff is practicing 'Anti Hindu, Anti Kannadiga, Anti Scheduled Caste' and sent copy of the same to the State Commission for Sc/St, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Human Rights Commission, Social Welfare Department, etc. After receiving complaint from the Defendant, National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes issued a letter dtd.15.07.2010 and 21.07.2010 calling for explanation from the plaintiff which was replied by the plaintiff on 26.07.2010 and 02.08.2010. Defendant also complained to Deputy Labour Commissioner about his salary deductions. Matter was heard on various dates and case was concluded on 04.03.2011. Defendant filed a private complaint in PCR 10 OS No.26137/2011 No.25853/2010 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, making baseless and false allegations against the plaintiff and to take cognizance of the offenses under sections-120B, 166, 167, 176, 177, 295, 295A, 420 and 506 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC. After enquiry police filed 'B' report in the said case. Defendant filed another PCR No.40046/2010 against some other employees of the Plaintiff hospital making similar allegations. But, in the said complaint also police filed 'B' report after investigation. Defendant filed another complaint registered as Crime No.262/2010 under section-504, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC and sec. 3(10) of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) on 15.11.2010 against the Plaintiff making defamatory allegations before Hebbal Police. Police have filed 'B' report in the said complaint also. Defendant thus deliberately made reckless, false and baseless 11 OS No.26137/2011 allegations by resorting to malicious prosecution only in order to force the plaintiff to yield to his illegal demands. Intention of the defendant was to threaten and attack the reputation of the plaintiff institution. In view of continued harassment and threat to the supervisors and violation of various Service Rules and false allegations made against the employees and management of the Plaintiff, a show cause notice was issued to the defendant and he was duly suspended and a detailed independent inquiry was held on 11.04.2011 and concluded that defendant was guilty of each of the charges leveled against him. Plaintiff in accordance with Employees Service Rules sent copy of the enquiry report to the defendant on 13.04.2011 calling for objections if any. Thereafter, upon examination of the enquiry report concluded that the misconduct on the part of defendant was grave and serious and accordingly 12 OS No.26137/2011 dismissed him from service of the Hospital with effect from 27.05.2011. On 25.08.2010 State Convener for Karnataka Rajya Dalith Sangharsha Samithi has written a letter condemning such incidents as done by the defendant to Director, National Commissioner, SC/ST, Secretary State Commissioner for SC/ST, Labour Commissioner, Asst. Director General of Police-Civil Rights Enforcement Cell. On 2.5.2011 during May day function in the plaintiff hospital when the defendant was under suspension, he through some other people unlawfully distributed some pamphlets dated 1.5.2011 titled 'Strike notice and protest letter' to the employees of the Plaintiff hospital claiming to be a Union Leader of the Hospital which actually did not exist in the Hospital and called for hunger strike thereby disturbing the function of the Plaintiff Hospital on 2.5.2011. As 13 OS No.26137/2011 per the knowledge of the plaintiff, defendant again called for a Pres conference on 15.06.2011 along with certain other persons and made blatantly slanderous statements against the plaintiff which was published in various newspapers by name 'E- Sanje', 'Vijaya karnataka' 'Kadaga', Rajasthan Patrika, etc. The slanderous statements that were made by the defendant at the Press conference are at para-21(a) to (e), which are as under:-
"(a) that the plaintiff had obtained 5 acres 9 guntas of land free of cost from the panchayath for the purpose of building hospital and that the same has been misused. That the plaintiff is constructing a building thereafter demolishing a Shiva Temple'. (b) That a road is being blocked with an intention to sell it to certain other persons. (c) That charitable 14 OS No.26137/2011 activities have been given up, money is being collected from patients and facilities have been provided only to persons who have capacity to pay. (d) That the Hospital is being run like a dictatorship. (e) That the hospital has police and politicians in its pockets".
Statements made at Press conference by the defendant are completely false, without any basis and were made with malafide and vindictive intention. As per the allegations made by the defendant regarding free land, Indian Baptist Mission had acquired various extent of land under Sale Deeds dtd.3.10.1968, 10.04.1968, 25.1.1971 and 12.10.1972. None of the properties were acquired free of cost or donated by anybody to the plaintiff. By paying valuable consideration plaintiff had acquired 15 OS No.26137/2011 land. Plaintiff is utilizing land for sole purpose of establishing the Hospital. Defendant made allegation that there was a Shiva Temple on the is far from truth. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District along with Tahsildar, Bengalure North addressed a letter dtd. 11.03.2011 to the Asst. Revenue Officer, BBMP after making inspection that there does not exist any Shiva Temple in the land owned by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is providing significant amount of free medical care to its employees as well as patients from decades. It is a Charitable Organization and entire amount of money which is earned by the Hospital is spent for the benefit of the people and for attainment of its objectives regardless of colour, caste, creed or any other consideration. Entire administration 16 OS No.26137/2011 of the Hospital is conducted by the Board of Management/Administrative Committee. Board members meet twice a year and Administrative Committee members meet once every week and conduct entire process pertaining to the affairs of the Plaintiff Hospital in completely democratic, transparent and fair way. Till the date no person has made any allegation about the management of the Hospital. Defendant who is aware that each of the allegations made by him are completely false, dishonest and fraudulent in issuing defamatory statements. False and defamatory statements are made with a view to incite religious sentiments of the public at large. All the employees of the Hospital have jointly given declaration against the trouble caused by defendant. In the garb of 17 OS No.26137/2011 news, the newspaper agencies are publishing information without even verifying the veracity of the libelous statements made by the defendant, which has negative impact on the unblemished reputation of the Plaintiff. After publication of the defamatory statements defendant has threatened various officials that he will continue the tirade. It was learnt that defendant was intended to call for another press conference and continue to make such malicious and slanderous allegations in the press . Subsequent to the filing of the suit, plaintiff has filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the defendant for the offences punishable under sections 499 and 500 of IPC on the same fact. Complaint was registered as PCR No.22630/2011. Defendant 18 OS No.26137/2011 appeared in the case and contested same by pleading that he is not guilty, but did not lead any evidence on his behalf. After full dressed trial by order dtd. 16.02.2019 defendant was found guilty of the offences of criminal defamation under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and further directed that in default of payment of fine amount he should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Defendant needs to be restrained by an order of injunction from proceeding with any further malicious campaign against the plaintiff, its officials and its institution. Hence, plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction and damages.
19
OS No.26137/2011
3. Defendant appeared and filed written statement.
4. Brief facts of the written statement of the defendant are as under:-
Suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Plaintiff has filed a false suit against the defendant only for the purpose of countering the defendant's claim before he filing a suit for damages. There is absolutely no cause of action for the suit. Plaintiff has no right to seek any injunction against the defendant, since the defendant has not made any defamatory statements against the plaintiff hospital. Plaintiff has violated the statutory/ rights, and the defendant was a permanent employee for 34 years, and has served in the 20 OS No.26137/2011 plaintiff Hospital. But, without conducting any enquiry or giving any opportunity he has been unceremonious removed from the service.
Defendant without any remarks whatsoever manner worked in plaintiff's hospital for the last 34 years honestly and satisfactorily discharged his duties, but only for the purpose of taking revenge against the defendant, management of the hospital has initiated false proceedings against him with an intention to remove him from service of the hospital, has conspired and involved in various illegalities and irregularities by trying to selling hospital property to third parties and management has demolished the Hindu Temple existing within the compound of Baptist Hospital and closed the public roads and management has ill treated the Hindu 21 OS No.26137/2011 employees in the Hospital. Plaintiff was refused his salary. Defendant denies the plaint allegations and further states that the present management of the Plaintiff Hospital has been collecting heavy charges from the patients and harassed the patients in all possible ways.
Plaintiff hospital is extracting money from poor people. He denies the allegations that he was terminated on the ground that he had stolen some gunny bats etc. Plaintiff has purposefully terminated the defendant without any valid reasons, thereafter the defendant approached the Labour Court and after conducting enqiry defendant was reinstated and management had unconditionally withdrawn the allegations made against him in the said reference. But, now plaintiff has made false and baseless allegations 22 OS No.26137/2011 against the defendant. In the medical department all the records pertaining to in-and- out patients of past and present are kept and maintained and there is lot of accumulation of dust due to which, defendant had suffered breathing and heart related problems and allergies. Due to hard work in the said Department and during the course of employment in the year 2008, defendant fell ill and was diagnosed for severe heart attack and high blood sugar, thereafter plaintiff had admitted him in its hospital on 14.05.2008 and treated upto 19.05.2008 and thereafter plaintiff management itself had taken decision for shifting the defendant to the Specialty Hospital and accordingly had shifted the defendant to Wockhardt Hospital for further treatment and 23 OS No.26137/2011 was discharged on 21.05.2008 and plaintiff charged the defendant for a total bill amount of Rs.12,393/- for giving treatment to him; and defendant was discharged by Wockhardt Hospital by charging a sum of Rs.1,72,680/- and the said amount was billed by the plaintiff Hospital. Management of both the hospitals had colluded with each other and plaintiff deducted the medical expenditure bills from the salary of the defendant. In order to recover the medical reimbursement, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount in OS No.6285/2011 before CCH No.31. Defendant was not unauthorizedly absent from duties as alleged by plaintiff. Defendant had requested the plaintiff not to deduct the medical expenses amount from his salary. In view of the conspiracy, behind the 24 OS No.26137/2011 back of defendant, plaintiff management issued a show cause notice without any bonafide reason, which was replied. On receipt of the reply, plaintiff went on issuing show cause notices with an intention to remove the defendant from service and without providing an opportunity had initiated an enquiry, though defendant had not committed any misconduct. Enquiry was conduced without following proper procedure as per law and submitted a false report and thereafter defendant was dismissed from the services illegally. Defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff that the letter dtd. 19.07.2007 making a false and defamatory allegation against the plaintiff etc., are incorrect. Management of the plaintiff has given all sorts of trouble to the defendant, since 25 OS No.26137/2011 he is a Hindu and Kannadiga belonging to SC/ST caste. Further the persons who represented the plaintiff colluding with each other always induce employees for conversion to Christianity from Hindu religion and for those who refuse to convert they started to remove them from service by framing false charges. In view of the harassment meted out by the defendant, defendant filed PCR 40046/2010 before CMM and another complaint in PCR No.25853/2010. Defendant had also lodged a complaint in Crime No.262/2010 under section 3(1) of the provisions of SC/ST Act and section 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the above said individual persons in respect of the acts committed by them in their individual capacity and not against the plaintiff Hospital. But, they 26 OS No.26137/2011 managed to file a 'B' report in all the said cases, which was challenged by the defendant. During the pendency of such proceedings, present suit filed by the plaintiff will not survive. Defendant denies the allegations made by the plaintiff that the defendant is resorting to malicious prosecution only in order to force the plaintiff to yield to his illegal demands etc. Defendant has not threatened and tarnished the reputation of the plaintiff's institution. Paper publications relied by the plaintiff is against the individual persons and not against Baptist Hospital. Statements are published by the president of Kannada Vedike. Moreover, Hebbal villagers have already given representation to BBMP and other competent authorities stating that the plaintiff had acquired the Govt. 27
OS No.26137/2011 property and demolished Shiva Temple and blocked the public road,etc., and authorities have conducted enquiry in respect of the same. Defendant denies the allegation that the defendant is attempting to create communal disharmony amongst the other employees. Defendant has not made any defamatory statement against the plaintiff hospital. It is stated that plaintiff has made a false and defamatory allegations against the defendant and plaintiff is illegally claiming the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- without any rights, basis as damages and plaintiff has failed to explain the assessment of quantum of damages. In fact, management has defamed the defendant in front of public and insulted his caste and used filthy language, and therefore defendant 28 OS No.26137/2011 reserves his right to claim proper damages against the Board of management. Hence, present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking damages will not survive for consideration. On these grounds, defendant has prayed for dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, plaintiff's Deputy Director have been examined as P.W.1 and also plaintiff has got examined its Legal officer as PW.2 and got marked 35 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.36. On behalf of the defendant, defendant has got examined himself as DW.1 and two individual witnesses as DW.2 and 3 and got marked 8 documents as ED.1 to D.8.
6. Heard arguments and perused the written arguments submitted by counsel for defendant. 29
OS No.26137/2011
7. Plaintiff's counsel has relied upon following decisions:-
1. (2010) 6 SCC 243
2. (2009) 7 SCC 559
3. AIR 2013 Kar. 831
8. Defendant's counsel has relied upon following decisions:-
1. AIR 2007 SC 976
2. (2009) 13 SCC 729
3. 2010 (4) JCC 2547
4. AIR 1971 Allahabad 109
5. AIR 1961, MP 329.
9. In view of the above pleadings following Issues have been framed in the case:- 30
OS No.26137/2011
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendant has published deformative statements against it?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that it has suffered damages of Rs.25,00,000/-?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is entitled for damages claimed?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is entitled for permanent injunction claimed?
5. What order or decree?
10. For the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs, I answer above Issues, as follows:- 31
OS No.26137/2011 ISSUE NO.1 :- The representations & complaints submitted by the defendant to various authorities and court do not amount to defamation, but the press statement signed by the defendant at Ex.P.36 alone amounts to tort of defamation on the part of defendant as against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2 :- Plaintiff has suffered damages of Rs.10,000/-
ISSUE NO.3 :- In the negative
ISSUE NO.4 :- In the negative
ISSUE NO.5 :- As per final Order
for the following
REASONS
11. ISSUE No.1:- The defendant is an employee of the plaintiff hospital. He was initially appointed in the year 1980 in its Livestock department. But during 1982 his services had been terminated on the allegation of theft of gunny bags 32 OS No.26137/2011 from Cowshed of the hospital during the working hours. The defendant had approached the Labour Court questioning his termination and a settlement was reached and the defendant was reinstated with 50% of back-wages in 1983. The defendant had continued in service till again he was dismissed on 27.05.2011. So during the employment there were labour disputes between the plaintiff Hospital and the defendant, who was its ex-employee, these facts are not in dispute. Now this action for defamation and damages is initiated for the alleged libelous defamation of the plaintiff by the defendant during the course of his employment and also after his dismissal from the service on 27.05.2011.
12. Since the suit is instituted for damages on the ground of defamation of the plaintiff's institution 33 OS No.26137/2011 by the defendant, at the outset, I deem it would be proper to deal with the ratio of law as it relates to an action for defamation. As for definition of defamation the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines it as taking away or destroying the good fame or reputation or speaking evil of or to charge falsely or to asperse.
13. To note some of the definitions ascribed to defamation by some of jurists, Underhill defines it as:-
(1) Defamation is the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another without just cause or excuse, whereby he suffers injury to his reputation (not to his self-easteem).
(2) A defamatory statement is one which imputes conduct or qualities tending to disparage or degrade any person or to expose him to contempt, ridicule or public hatred, or to prejudice him in the way of his office, profession or trade.34
OS No.26137/2011 According to Salmond the wrong of defamation consists in the publication of a false and defamatory statement concerning another person without lawful justification.
According to Winfield's definition -
"Defamation" is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person."
14. As regards malicious prosecution the ingredients required to establish the same are stated in the case of Vijai Nath -V/s- Damodar Das Chela Shiv Mangal Das and other reported in AIR 1971 ALLAHABAD 109, which is relied on by the defendant counsel, as below:-
"(1) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant.
(2) That those proceedings terminated in favour of plaintiff.35
OS No.26137/2011 (3) That the prosecution was without any reasonable or probable cause and (4) That it was due to malicious intention and not with a mere intention of carrying law into effect".
15. In the decision relied upon for the plaintiff in the case of B.M.Thimmaiah -V/s- Smt.T.M.Rukimini and Others, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that the following four essentials are to be established in an action of defamation -
"1) There must be a defamatory statement,
2) The defamatory statement must be understood by right-thinking or reasonable-minded persons as referring to the plaintiff,
3) There must be publication of the defamatory statement, that is to say, it must be communicated to some person other than the plaintiff himself,
4) In case of slander, either there must be proof of special damage or the slander must come within the serious classes of cases in which it is actionable per se".36
OS No.26137/2011
16. It has further been held in the said decision that in order to find-out whether a statement is defamatory or not, the first rule is that the whole of the statement complained of must be read and not only a part or parts of it, and it is also necessary that in determining the natural or ordinary meaning of the words, the court must have regard to the fact as to what the words would convey to the ordinary man. The natural and the ordinary meaning of the words which are the subject matter of defamation are the same for the lawyer and also for the layman. When the language used is derogatory, the layman reads by making implications much more freely and law of defamation is required to take note of the same.
17. Further it would be advantageous to note definition as given U/Sec.499 of the Indian 37 OS No.26137/2011 Penal Code for defamation including its explanations and exceptions, which reads as follows:-
"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.38
OS No.26137/2011 Explanation 4--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations
(a) A says--"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
First Exception.--Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.--It is not defamation to impute 39 OS No.26137/2011 anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching any public question.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate 40 OS No.26137/2011 for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.--It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation--A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustrations
(a) A says--"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says 41 OS No.26137/2011 this is in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says--"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness.
Sixth Exception--Merits of public performance.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Illustrations
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
42
OS No.26137/2011
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z--"Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further.
(e) But if A says--"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine". A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book.
Seventh Exception--Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other 43 OS No.26137/2011 in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school-master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier
--are within this exception.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in 44 OS No.26137/2011 good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's father--A is within this exception. Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business--"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty". A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.--It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be 45 OS No.26137/2011 intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
18. Having noted the definition and ingredients related to defamation and malicious prosecution, now I refer to the alleged defamatory acts/Statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff, which is set-out at para 11 to 16 and 21 of the plaint which is reproduced as below:-
"11. The Defendant thereafter wanted the Plaintiff to bear the entire cost of his medical treatment incurred at Wockhardt Hospital. This is impermissible in accordance with the Employee Service Rules and the Plaintiff responded to the same by declining such request as being opposed to the Rules. Being allegedly aggrieved, the Defendant started making wholly false, baseless and wild allegations against the Plaintiff. On 19.06.2010, Defendant addressed a letter to Dr.Alexander Thomas, the Director (CEO) of the Hospital making allegations against Plaintiff falsely stating that he has not been 46 OS No.26137/2011 given proper care at the hospital and that he has been denied finances and health by the Plaintiff. The Defendant with a malafide intention of tarnishing the Plaintiff's reputation, fair name and standing in Bangalore, specifically made malicious and false statements that Plaintiff is "anti Hindus", "anti Kannadigas" and "anti Schedule Caste".
Specific false and libelous allegations were made against the members of the Grievance committee as well those who were examining his request for payment of his medical bills. This was responded to immediately by the Plaintiff on 10.07.2010 refuting the allegations and false statements of Defendant are completely false. It was clarified that all steps were being taken by the Plaintiff to ensure that he was treated on par with their other employees in accordance with the service conditions of the Plaintiff. Surprisingly, the Defendant on 19.07.2010 responded making further false and defamatory allegations and making certain demands against the Plaintiff which were without any basis whatsoever. Copies of letters dated 19.06.2010, 10.07.2010 and 19.07.2010 are produced herewith as Document Nos.10, 11 & 12.
12. Thereafter, on 12.07.2010, the Defendant made a representation to the Chairman of the 47 OS No.26137/2011 National Commission for Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes, at Bangalore making false allegations that the Plaintiff is practicing "Anti Hindu, Anti Kannadiga, Anti Schedule Caste"
policy and copy of the same was sent to State Commission for SC/ST, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Human Rights Commission, Social Welfare Department, etc. The copy id produced herewith as Document No.13. After the receiving the complaint from the Defendant, the National Commission for the Scheduled Caste issued a letter dated 15.07.2010, and the State Commission also issued a letter dated 21.07.2010, calling for explanation from the Plaintiff. Copy of the same is produced herewith as Document No.14 & 15 respectively. The Plaintiff was constrained to respond to the said notices on 26.07.2010 and 02.08.2010 to both National and State Commission by issuing a detailed response which is produced herewith as Document No.16 & 17 respectively.
13. The Defendant has also complained to the Deputy Labour Commission about his salary deductions, Wherein, the matter was heard on various dates and the Plaintiff has files necessary reply to the same and the case was concluded on 04.03.2011. A copy of the Order 48 OS No.26137/2011 sheet of the same is produced as Document No.18.
14. The Defendant filed PCR 25853/2010 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore making baseless and false allegations against the Plaintiff and to take cognizance of offences against Plaintiff and other officials under Section 120B, 166, 167, 176, 177, 295, 295A, 420, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police after investigation, concluded that there is no basis for the complaint and filed "B" report. The copy of the FIR, complaint, and the B-Report are produced herewith as Document 19, 19(a) and 19(b).
15. The Defendant also filed PCR 40046/2010 against some other employees of the Plaintiff making similar false allegations as in PCR 25853/2010 and requesting cognizance of the offence to be taken under Section 120B, 166, 167, 177, 295, 295A, 420, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation again concluded that there is no basis and issued "B" report. The copy of the FIR, complaint and the B-Report are produced herewith as Document 20, 20(a) and 20(b).
49
OS No.26137/2011
16. The Defendant filed another Complaint registered as CR.No.262/2010 under section 504, 506, read with sec. Sec.34 of IPC and section 3(10) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) on 15.11.2010 against Plaintiff making various defamatory allegations before the Hebbal Police Station. After investigation, the police filed "B" Report in relation to the FIR stating that it was false case. The copy of the FIR, Complaint and the B Report are produced herewith as Document 21, 21(a) and 21(b).
17.........
18..........
19..........
20........
21........It appears that Defendant called for a press conference on 15.06.2011 along with certain other persons and made certain blatantly slanderous statements against the Plaintiff. The same was published in various news papers by name "E-Sanje", "Vijayakarnataka", "Kadga", "Rajashtan Patrika" etc. The slanderous statements that were made by the Defendant at the press conference:
a. that the plaintiff had obtained 5 acres 9 guntas of land free of cost from the panchayat for the purpose of building 50 OS No.26137/2011 hospital and that the same has been misused. That the Plaintiff is constructing a building there after demolishing a Shiva Temple.
b. That a road is being blocked with an intention to sell it to certain other persons.
c. That charitable activities have been given up, money is being collected from patients and facilities have been provided only to persons who have capacity to pay.
d. That the Hospital is being run like a dictatorship.
e. that the hospital has police and politicians in its pockets".
19. The above being alleged imputation of defamation, the plaintiff in order to substantiate the same, apart from adducing the oral evidence of PW2-the Legal Officer of the plaintiff hospital, has produced certified copies of representations submitted by the defendant wherein the imputed 51 OS No.26137/2011 statements are made as per Ex.P.8, the letter dated.19.06.2010 submitted by the defendant to the CEO of plaintiff hospital, Ex.P.10-
representation submitted by the defendant to the Director of the plaintiff hospital, Ex.P.11 the representation dtd.12.07.2010 submitted by the defendant to the Chairman, National SC/ST Commission, Government of India. Ex.P.33 the representation dtd.12.7.2010 submitted by the defendant to the Chairman, SC/ST, Commission, Karnataka State and as for the Press statement, the plaintiff has produced copies of paper publications, in which the articles pertaining to the alleged press statement, wherein the imputed defamatory statement has been made, as per Ex.P.18 to 21 and a copy of press statement as per Ex.P.36. The defendant admits all the representations submitted by him to the 52 OS No.26137/2011 CEO/Director of the plaintiff hospital, SC/ST Commission, Karnataka State, SC/ST National Commission, Government of India. However, the defendant denies issuing press statement. In the written statement at paras 13 and 14, the defendant contends that one Prabhakar Reddy has issued the press statement; and he has not issued any defamatory statement to the Press. Therefore, the question is whether the aforesaid documents and articles carry statement which are defamatory in nature and also whether the representations submitted by the defendant would amount to malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, and whether the press statement has been issued by the defendant.
20. In this connection, Ex.P.8-representation dtd.19.06.2010 is reproduced as below:- 53
OS No.26137/2011 "K.MUNIRAJU, Bangalore Emp. No.00285, Dt:19/06/2019 Medical Records Departments, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.
To, Dr.ALEXANDER THOMAS, Director (CEO)., Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore-560 024.
Dear Doctor, Refer to your letter dated 4th June 2010 what an amount of Tragedy?
You have "No Concern" for a "Human Being"
that too asper your own statement that I am a member of B.B.H. Family? What is the ultimate result?
1) You have not Accepted my Replies to the Show cause Notices?
2) Suspended for four days without salary?
3) For the sake of Eye Wash you have referred my case in respect of re-reimbursement of Medical bills for my Heart Operation and B.B.H. Bills of "Grievance Committee?". The same Committee projected the story of Cock and Bull?
4) They are the stooges of you and the ultimate result is blank and Nill i.e., the Big Zero?.
5) What the financial help from the Hospital I rendered to a person who has put in 33 years of Service?54
OS No.26137/2011
6) As a member of B.B.H. family I have taken a room to stay as a patient for my Heart Ailment not stayed in a V.I.P. Room. For which you are not interested to reimburse to B.B.H. charges?
7) Staff Welfare Fund is our own money? Not Your Hospital Money?
8) Staff Donation a Begged Money which I have not expected of the same?
9) Interest Free Loan of Rs.53,000/- which I have not taken? Answer the same?
10) I never expected to cheat me in this Manner?
11) For all these Lapses you will be held responsible?
12) What is the Financial Help and support by Bangalore Baptist Hospital given to me?
13) You are Anti-Hindu, Anti-Kanndiga, and Anti-Scheduled Caste.
14) I anticipate the answer all these issues Appraised above.
Thanking you, Yours Faithfully, (K.MUNIRAJU) Copy to:-
1) Col. Deepak Bunyan, Chairman Grievance Committee, B.B.H., Bangalore. You are Anti-Hindu, Anti-Kannadiga, and Anti Scheduled Caste.55
OS No.26137/2011 Ex.P.11 Representation dtd.12.07.2010 submitted to the Chairman, Notational SC/ST Commission is reproduced as below:-
"K.MUNIRAJU, Bangalore-560 024 Emp. No.00285, Dt:12.07.2010 Medical Records Departments, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.
To, The Chairman, National SC/ST Commission, Government of India, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, BANGALORE-560 034.
Sir, Sub:- Harassment by the Management of Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore.
***** I the undersigned, bring the following few lines for your kind consideration and necessary action thereon.
1st ISSUE
1) I was Appointed on 1-6-1977 confirmed on 1.2.1980 total 33 years of service.56
OS No.26137/2011
2) I was bed-ridden, from 1.3.2010 to 25.03.2010 the management sent Show Cause Notice and Reminder dated 11.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 respectively.
3) I have submitted my replies on 25.03.2010.
4) The Enquiry Proceedings by the Management on 07-04-2010 (Copy enclosed).
5) I have submitted my rejoinder stating that it is Illegal Proceedings 1 dated 9.4.2010. (Copy enclosed).
6) The Management has not considered my Rejoinder, instead Suspended for 4 days, without pay" (copy enclosed) IInd ISSUE
1) I have requested the Management of Re-imburse the Medical Expenses of Rs.12,393/- of Bangalore Baptist Hospital. Bill and Wockhardt Hospital bill of Rs.1,72,680/- on 19.04.2010. (Copy enclosed.)
2) They have not acceded to my request to reimburse the amount of Rs.12,393/- and Rs.1,72,680/- and to stop deduction, which is in Vogue since July 2008 (Copy of the salary certificate is enclosed) out of Rs.7,929/- Gross Salary after Deduction net Salary is Rs.1,682/- only.
3) The Salary Certificate for the month of June 2010 is also enclosed for your kind perusal. 57
OS No.26137/2011
4) They are not following the Rules and Regulations i.e., "Take Home Salary including deduction should not be less than the 50% of the Gross Salary. IIIrd ISSUE
1) I belongs to Schedule Caste Community (Adi Karnataka) copy enclosed).
2) The Bangalore Baptist Hospital Management is practicing Anti-Hindu and Anti-Scheduled Caste Policy.
3) They are Anti-Kannadigas, because they are all Malayalis and Tamilians.
4) They have tired their best to Convert me to Christianity and I have not obliged their Ulterior Motives. As such, creating Mental Torture and Official Harassment and Humiliation.
In view of the above details I request your goodselves to kindly look into the matter and Bestow Justice to me and oblige.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (K.MUNIRAJU) Ex.P.33-Representation dtd. 12.07.2010 submitted by the defendant to the Chairman, SC/ST 58 OS No.26137/2011 Commission, Karnataka State is reproduced as below:-
"K.MUNIRAJU, Bangalore-560 024 Emp. No.00285, Dt:12.07.2010 Medical Records Departments, Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore-560 024.
To, The Chairman, SC/ST Commission, Karnataka State, Bangalore.
Sir, Sub:- Harassment by the Management of Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore.
***** I the undersigned, bring the following few lines for your kind consideration and necessary action thereon.
1st ISSUE
1) I was Appointed on 1-6-1977 confirmed on 1.2.1980 total 33 years of service.
2) I was bed-ridden, from 1.3.2010 to 25.03.2010 the management sent Show Cause Notice and 59 OS No.26137/2011 Reminder dated 11.03.2010 and 19.03.2010 respectively.
3) I have submitted my replies on 25.03.2010.
4) The Enquiry Proceedings by the Management on 07-04-2010 (Copy enclosed).
5) I have submitted my rejoinder stating that it is Illegal Proceedings 1 dated 9.4.2010. (Copy enclosed).
6) The Management has not considered my Rejoinder, instead Suspended for 4 days, without pay" (copy enclosed) IInd ISSUE
1) I have requested the Management of Re-
imburse the Medical Expenses of Rs.12,393/- of Bangalore Baptist Hospital. Bill and Wockhardt Hospital bill of Rs.1,72,680/- on 19.04.2010. (Copy enclosed.)
2) They have not acceded to my request to reimburse the amount of Rs.12,393/- and Rs.1,72,680/- and to stop deduction, which is in Vogue since July 2008 (Copy of the salary certificate is enclosed) out of Rs.7,929/- Gross Salary after Deduction net Salary is Rs.1,682/- only.
3) The Salary Certificate for the month of June 2010 is also enclosed for your kind perusal.
4) They are not following the Rules and Regulations i.e., "Take Home Salary including deduction should not be less than the 50% of the Gross Salary. 60
OS No.26137/2011 IIIrd ISSUE
1) I belongs to Schedule Caste Community (Adi Karnataka) copy enclosed).
2) The Bangalore Baptist Hospital Management is practicing Anti-Hindu and Anti- Scheduled Caste Policy.
3) They are Anti-Kannadigas, because they are all Malayalis and Tamilians.
4) They have tired their best to Convert me to Christianity and I have not obliged their Ulterior Motives. As such, creating Mental Torture and Official Harassment and Humiliation.
In view of the above details I request your goodselves to kindly look into the matter and Bestow Justice to me and oblige.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (K.MUNIRAJU)
21. So far as the News items/Articles published in various News Papers in Udayavani kannada daily newspaper dtd.16.06.2011, which is marked at Ex.P.18, the article published is as below:- 61
OS No.26137/2011 "ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಜಮಮನನ ಮಬರಬಟ ಆರರರಮಪ , ತನಖರಗರ ಆಗಗಹ ಬರಬಗಳರರನರ ಸಬರರಜನಕ ಅನನಕರಲತರಯಯ ದದಷಪಯಬದ ಗಬಗಮ ಪಬಚಬಯತ ನಮಡರನರ ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಆಡಳತ ಮಬಡಳ ದನರನಪಯಮಗ ಪಡಸಕರರಬಡದರ ಎಬದನ ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ ಆರರರಮಪಸದರ. ಈ ಬಗರಗ ಲರರಮಕಬಯನಕಕ ತನಖರ ನಡರಸಬರಮಕನ ಎಬದನ ವರಮದಕರ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಮತನಕ ಮಬಜ ಶಬಸಕ ಕರ . ಪಗಭಬಕರ ರರಡಡ ಆಗಗಹಸದಬದರರ.
ಸಬರರಜನಕ ಉಪಯಮಗದ ಉದರದಮಶದಬದ ನಮಡದ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ಆಡಳತ ಮಬಡಲ ಕರರಮಟಬಬಬತರ ರರ.ಗಳಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡ, ಅರಬರಟರಟಬಟಟಯ ನಮಸರಲನ ಅನನರವ ಮಬಡಕರರಟಪದರ. ಈ ಸಬಬಬಧ ರಬಜಬರಬಲರನ ಮತನಕ ಲರರಮಕಬಯನಕಕ ನಬಬಯಮರತರಗಳಗರ ಮನವ ಸಲಲಸಲಬಗನರವದನ ಎಬದನ ಪಗಭಬಕರ ರರಡಡ ತಳಸದಬದರರ."
The article published in Vijaya Karnataka daily newspaper dtd. 16.06.2011 marked at Ex.P.19 is as below:-
" ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪನಬದ ಜಬಗ ದನಬರಳಕರ ಆಸಸತರಗ ನಮಬರರಕರಕಬದನ 1968 ರಲಲ ಪಬಚಬಯತ ರತಯಬದ ಪಡರದನ 5 ಎಕರರ 19 ಗನಬಟರ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಹರಬಬಬಳದ ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ಆಡಳತ ಮಬಡಳ ದನರನಪಯಮಗಪಡಸಕರರಳನಳತಕದರ. ಇದರ ಬಗರಗ ಸರಕಕ ತನಖರ ನಡಸರಬರಮಕರಬದನ ಒತಬಕಯಸ ರಬಜಬರಬಲರಗರ ಮನವ ಸಲಲಸನರವದಬಗ ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ ತಳಸದರ. ಆಸಸತರಗ ಕಟಪಲನ ಮಬತಗ ಉಪಯಮಗಸಬರಮಕನ. ಈ ಜಬಗದಲಲರನರ ಶರನ ದರಮರಸಬಸನ ಉಳಸಕರರಳಳಬರಮಕನ ಎಬಬ ನಬಬಧನರ ಉಲಲಬಫಸದರ ಎಬದನ ವರಮದಕರ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಪಗಭಬಕರ ರರಡಡ ಪತಗಕಬಗರರಮಷಪಯಲಲ ತಳಸದರನ. "62
OS No.26137/2011 The article published in E-Sanje kannada daily newspaper dt.15.06.2011, which is marked at Ex.P.20 is as below:-
" ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಮಮಲರ ಆರರರಮಪ ದರಮರಸಬಸನ ಒಡರದನ ಜಬಗ ಒತನಕರರರ ಪಗಭಬಕರಟ ರರಡಡ ಆಕರರಗಮಶ ಬರಬಗಳರರನರ ಜರ.15- ಹರಬಬಬಳದಲಲರನರ ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಆಡಳತ ಮಬಡಳ ಸಬರರಜನಕ ಉದರದಮಶಕಬಕಗ ನಮಡರನರ ಭರಮಯನನನ ದನರನಪಯಮಗಪಡಸಕರರಳನಳತಕರನರವದಲಲದರ ಅಕಕಪಕಕದ ಭರಮ ಒತನಕರರ ಮಬಡಕರರಳನಳತಕದರ ಎಬದನ ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ ರಬಜಬಬಧಬಕಕ ಕರ.ಪಗಭಬಕರರರಡಡ ಆರರರಮಪಸದಬದರರ.
ಸನದದಗರರಮಷಪಯಲಲ ಮಬತನಬಡದ ಅರರನ 1968 ರಲಲ ಸಸಳಮಯ ಪಬಚಬಯಕ ರತಯಬದ ಗಬಗಮಸಸರ ಅನನಕರಲಕಬಕಗ 5 ಎಕರರ 19 ಗನಬಟರ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಮಬಜರರನ ಮಬಡಲಬಗತನಕ .
ಈ ಭರಮಯನನನ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಹರರರತನಪಡಸ ಬರಮರರ ಯಬರವದರಮ ಉದರದಮಶಕರಕ ಬಳಸದಬತರ ಶರತನಕ ವಧಸದದರನ. ಬಹನಮಹಡ ಕಟಪಡ ಕಟಪಲನ ಕರರಮಟಬಬತರ ರರ.ಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡಲಬಗದರ. ಇದರಮ ಜಬಗದಲಲದದ ಶರನ ದರಮವಬಲಯರನನನ ಶರತನಕ ಉಲಲಬಫರಸ ನರಲಸಮ ಮಬಡಲಬಗದರ. ಜತರಗರ ಗಬಗಮಸಸರನ ಓಡಬಡನರ ರಸರಕ ಹಬಗರ ರಬಜಕಬಲವರಯನನನ ಒತನಕರರ ಮಬಡಕರರಳಳಲಬಗದರ ಎಬದರನ. ಈ ಬಗರಗ ಬಬಎಬಪಗರ ದರರನ ನಮಡದರರ ಯಬರವದರಮ ಕಗಮ ಕರಕಗರರಬಡಲಲ. ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ಭರರಬರಹಬರಕರಕ ಸಬಬಬಧಸದಬತರ ರಬಜಬರಬಲರನ ಮತನಕ ಲರರಮಕಬಯನಕಕರಗರ ತಬರವ ದರರನ ನಮಡಡನರವದಬಗ ತಳಸದರನ.
1985 ರಲಲ ಮನಖಬ-ಕಬಯನರರಹರಣಬಧಕಬರಯಬಗ ನರಮಮಕವಬದ ರಬಕಕ ಈ ಎಲಲ ಅವಬಬತರಗಳನನನ ಮಬಡನತಕದಬದರರ. ರಬಜಕಬರಣಗಳನ ತನನ ಜರಮಬನಲಲದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ಹರಮಳನರ ಮರಲಕ ಈ ರಬಕಕ ಪಲಮಸರನ ಹಬಗರ ಸಸಳಮಯರ ಬಗರಗ ಅರಹರಮಳನಕಬರಯಬಗ ಮಬತನಬಡನತಕದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ಪಗಭಬಕರರರಡಡ ಕಡಕಬರದರನ.63
OS No.26137/2011 ಹರಬಬಬಳ ಗಬಗಪಬ ಮಬಜ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಎಚಟ.ಆರಟ.ಲಬಗಯಬ, ಗಬಗಮಬಬತರ ಜಲಬಲ ಪರಶಷಪಜಬತ ಮತನಕ ಪಬಗಡದ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಕರ.ಮನನರಬಜನ ಉಪಸಸತರದದರನ. "
The article published in Bangalore Khadga newspaper dtd. 16.06.2011 marked at Ex.P.21 is as below:-
"ಶರನ ದರಮರಸಬಸನ ನರಲಸಮ ಸಬರರಜನಕರ ಆಕರಕಮಪ ಬರಬಗಳರರನರ ಹರಬಬಬಳ ಸನತಕಮನತಕಲನ ಜನರಗರ ಅನನಕರಲವಬಗಲ ಎಬಬ ದದಷಪಯಬದ ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗ ನಮರಸಲನ ಉಚತವಬಗ 5 ಎಕರರ ಭರಮ ನಮಡಲಬಗತನಕ . ಈ ಜಬಗರನನನ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಕಟಪಲನ ಮಬತಕ ಉಪಯಮಗಸಕರರಳನಳರವದಬಗ ಪಬಚಬಯತಗರ ನಮಡದ ದಬಖಲರಯಲಲ ಸಸಷಪವಬಗ ಹರಮಳದರ.
ಆದರರ ಆ ಸಸಳದಲಲ ಇರನರ ಪವರಬತನ ಶರನ ದರಮರಸಬಸನರನನನ ನರಲಸಮ ಮಬಡ ಅಲಲ ಬಹನಮಹಡ ಕಟಪಲನ ಹರರರಟದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ ಕನಬರಟಕ ರಬಜಬಬಧಬಕಕ ಮತನಕ ಶಬಸಕ ಕರ .ಪಗಭಬಕರಟ ರರಡಡ ಹರಮಳದರನ.
ಸಬರರಜನಕರನ ಹರರಡಬಡಲನ ಇದದ ದಬಡನ ರಸರಕಯನನನ ಹಬಗರ ರಬಜಕಬಲನವರಯನನನ ಮನಚಚ ಅದನನನ ಬರಮರರಯರರಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡಲನ ಮನಬದಬಗದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ಕಡಕಬರದರನ.
ಸಬಮಬನಬ ರರರಮಗಗಳಗರ ಉತಕಮ ರಮತಯಬದ ಸಸಬಧಸ ಹರಸರಬದ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಎಬದನ ಆಡಳತ ನರರಹಣರಯಬದಬಗ ಖಬಸಗ ಆಸಸತರಗಯಬತರ ಹರ ರಸರಲ ಮಬಡಲಬಗನತತದರ ಎಬದನ ದರರದರನ.
ಡಬ.ಥಬಮಸಟಯ ಎಬಬನರರರನ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ನದರಮರಶಕರಬಗದನದ ಜನ ಸಬಮಬನಬರಗರ ಉತಕಮ ಚಕತರತ ನಮಡದರ ಕರಮರಲ ದನಡನಡ ಇದದರರಗರ ಆರರರಮಗಬ ಎನನನರಬತಬಗದರ ಎಬದನ ಆರರರಮಪಸದರನ.64
OS No.26137/2011 ಮಡಕಲಟಯ ಸಹಬಯಕ ರರಫಗಜರಬಟಟಯಕರ.ಮನನರಬಜನ ಮಬತನಬಡ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಮದಲನ ಉತಕಮವಬಗ ಆರರರಮಗಬ ಸರಮವರ ನಮಡನತಬಕ ಜನರ ಮನನಣರಗರ ರಬತಗವಬಗತನಕ .
ಟಗಸಪ ಮರಲಕ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ ಆಡಳತ ನಯಬತಗರದಲಲ ನಡರಯನತಕತನಕ , ಆದರರ ಆ ಟಗಸಪನನನ ವಸಜರಸ ನಬನರಮ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಎಲಲರವ ನಬನರ ಎಬದನ ದಮನಕಬರ ನಮತ ಅನನಸರಸನತಕರನರವದರಬದ ಜನರಗರ ತರರಬದರರಯಬಗನತಕದರ ಎಬದನ ಹರಮಳದರನ.
ಆಸಸತರಗಯಲಲ 34 ರಷರಗಳಬದ ಸರಮವರ ಮಬಡನತಕದನದ ಇರರನ ಮಬಡದ ಅನಬಬಯರನನನ ಪಗತಭಟಸದಬಗ ಕರಲಸದಬದ ರಜಬಗರರಳಸದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ಆರರರಮಪಸದರನ.
ಇದರ ಬಗರಗ ಬಬಎಬಪ ಅಧಕಬರಗಳ ಗಮನಕರಕ ತಬದರನ ಯಬರವದರಮ ಕಗಮ ಕರಕಗರರಳಳದರ ಎಜಬಟರಬತರ ರತರಸನತಕದಬದರರ ಎಬದನ ದರರದರನ.
ಪತಗಕಬಗರರಮಷಪಯಲಲ ಹರಬಬಬಳ ಗಬಗಪಬ ಮಬಜ ಅಧಬಕಕ ಹರಚಟ.ಆರಟ.ಲಬಗರಣ ಉಪಸಸತರದದರನ."
The press statement issued as per Ex.P.36, in which admittedly the defendant is a signatory is reproduced as below:-
ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ ಕನಬರಟಕ ದನಬಬಕರ 15.06.2011 ಪತಗಕಬ ಗರರಮಷಪ ಹರಮಳಕರ ಮಬನಬರರ, 65 OS No.26137/2011 ಬರಬಗಳರರನ ಹರಬಬಬಳದಲಲರನರ ಬಬಬಪಪಸಪ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಅಲಲನ ಸನತಕಮನತಕಲರನರ ಗಬಗಮಬಬತರ ಜನರ ಅನನಕರಲಕಬಕಗ ಆಸಸತರಗ ನಮರಸಲನ ಅಲಲನ ಪಬಚಬಯತಯಬದ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಪಡರದನ ಕರರಮಟಬಬಬತರ ರರರಬಯಗಳಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡ ದನರನಪಯಮಗ ಪಡಸಕರರಬಡನ ಭಗಷಬಪಚಬರವರಸಗನತಕರನರವದನ ತಳದನಬಬದದರ.
1968, 3 ನರಮ ತಬರಮಖನ ಅಕರರಪಮಬರಟ ತಬಗಳಲಲ ಅಲಲನ ಪಬಚಬಯತ ರತಯಬದ ಗಬಗಮಸಸರ ಅನನಕರಲಕಬಕಗ 5 ಎಕರರ 19 ಗನಬಟರ ಜಮಮನನನನ ಪಡರದನ ನರರಮಬದಣ ಮಬಡಸಕರರಬಡದಬದರರ . ಈ ಪತಗದಲಲ ಪಬಚಬಯತಯರರನ ಈ ಜಬಗರನನನ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಕಟಪಲನ ಮಬತಗ ಉಪಯಮಗಸಬರಮಕನ. ಬರಮರರ ಯಬರ ಉದರದಮಶಕರಕ ಉಪಯಮಗಸಬಬರದರಬದನ ನಬಬಧನರಯನನನ ಸಹ ಹಬಕರನತಬಕರರ ಹಬಗರ ಈ ಜಬಗದಲಲರನರ ಪವರಬತನವಬದಬತಹ ಶರನ ದರಮರಸಬಸನರನನನ ಉಳಸಕರರಳಳಬರಮಕರಬದನ ಸಹ ನಬಬಧನರಗರ ಒಳಪಟಪರನತಕದರ. ಆದರರ, ಈಗನ ಆಡಳತ ರಗರದರರನ ಆ ಜಬಗದ ಸಸಲಸ ಜಬಗರನನನ ಬಹನಮಹಡ ಕಟಪಡ ಕಟಪಲನ ಕರರಮಟಬಬಬತರ ರರರಬಯಗಳಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡದಬದರರ. ಆ ಜಬಗದಲಲ ಬಹನಮಹಡಗಳ ಕಟಪಡರನನನ ಸಹ ಕಟನಪತಕದಬದರರ ಮತನಕ ಉಳದ ಜಬಗದಲಲರನರ ಶರನ ದರಮರಸಬಸನರನನನ ನರಲಸಮ ಮಬಡದಬದರರ. ಗಬಗಮಸಸರನ ಓಡಬಡನರವದಕರಕ ಇದದ ದಬಡನ ರಸರಕಯನನನ ಹಬಗರ ರಬಜಕಬಲನವರಯನನನ ಮನಚಚ ಅದನನನ ಬರಮರರಯರರಗರ ಮಬರಬಟ ಮಬಡಲನ ಮನಬದಬಗದಬದರರ.
ಈ ಅನಬಬಯದ ಬಗರಗ ಸದರ ಆಸಸತರಗಯಲಲ ಆ ಗಬಗಮದರರರಮ ಆದ ಕರ.ಮನನರಬಜನರರರನ ಕಳರದ 34 ರಷರಗಳಬದ ಕರಲಸ ಮಬಡನತಕದನದ , ಇರರನ ಮಬಡದ ಅನಬಬಯರನನನ ಪಗತಭಟಸದಬಗ ಇರರನ ಕರಲಸದಬದ ಅಮಬನತನಕಗರರಳಸದಬದರರ. ಇದರ ಬಗರಗ ಈಗನ ಅಧಕಬರಗಳನ ಮತನಕ ಬ.ಬ.ಎಬ.ಪ ಯ ಅಧಕಬರಗಳ ಗಮನಕರಕ ತಬದರನ ಸಹ ಅರರನ ಯಬರವದರಮ ಕಗಮ ಕರಕಗರರಳಳದರ ಆಡಳತ ರಗರದರರ ಏಜರಬಟರಬತರ ರತರಸನತಕದಬದರರ. ಈಗರನರ ಆಸಸತರಗಯ 66 OS No.26137/2011 ಆಡಳತ ರಗರದರರನ ಅನರಮಕ ದನಬರಳಕರ ಮಬಡನತಕದಬದರರಬದನ ತಳದನ ಬಬದದರ.
ಆದನದರಬದ ತಕಕರ ಇದರ ಬಗರಗ ಸರಕಕ ಕಗಮ ಕರಕಗರರಬಡನ ತನಖರ ನಡರಸಬರಮಕರಬದನ ಒತಬಕಯಸನತರಕಮವರ ಮತನ ಇದರ ಬಗರಗ ಸರಕಕವಬದ ಮಬಹತಯಡನರ ಮಬನಬ ರಬಜಬರಬಲರಗರ, ಮಬನಬ ಲರರಮಕಬಯನಕಕರಗರ ಹಬಗರ ಮಬನಬ ಮನಖಬಮಬತಗಗಳಗರ ಮನವ ಸಲಲಸಲಬಗನರವದನ.
ರಬದನರಗಳರರಬದಗರ,
ಇಬತ ತಮಟ ವಶಬಸಸಗಳನ
(ಕರ.ಮನನರಬಜನ) (ಹರಚಟ.ಆರಟ.ಲಬಗರಣ)
ಅಧಬಕಕರನ ಮಬಜ ಚರಮಮರನಟ
ಬರಬಗಳರರನ ನಗರ ಜಲರಲ ಹರಬಬಬಳ ಗಬಗಮ ಪಬಚಬಯತ
ಹಬಗರ ಗಬಗಮಬಬತರ ಜಲರಲ
ಪರಶಷಪ ಜಬತ ಮತನಕ ಪರಶಷಪ ಪಬಗಡ.
(ಕರ.ಪಗಭಬಕರ ರರಡಡ )
ಮಬಜ ಶಬಸಕರನ ಹಬಗರ ರಬಜಬಬಧಬಕಕರನ ಹಬಗರ ರಬಜಬಬಧಬಕಕರನ ಕನನಡ ವರಮದಕರ."
22. The plaintiff counsel, who has filed written statement in the case, interalia, contends that, the defendant being its ex-employee was admitted in the plaintiff hospital for chest pain in the year 2008 and he was diagnised as having heart ailment and hence plaintiff hospital has no facility for treating the heart ailment, it referred the 67 OS No.26137/2011 defendant to Wockhardt hospital. Where the defendant took treatment in a special ward. The defendant was admitted in that hospital in special ward as per his choice and the plaintiff had no liability to assist the defendant financially for his treatment in Wockhardt hospital. On completion of treatment the Wockhardt hospital charged the defendant in a sum of Rs.2,31,925/- at which point the defendant pleaded the management of the plaintiff hospital to make payment of the said bill and requested to deduct the same from his salary. The plaintiff hospital heeding to the repeated requests made by the defendant, paid the entire outstanding bill of Wockhardt hospital on humanitarian ground. But when the plaintiff sought repayment of the bill amount the defendant began to make slanderous statements against the plaintiff hospital management by approaching various 68 OS No.26137/2011 authorities like the State SC/ST Commission, National SC/ST Commission. Human Rights Commission and also filed false complaints against the plaintiff and its Directors. The plaintiff filed a recovery suit against the defendant in O.S.No. 6285/2011, which was decreed in its favour and after an execution petition filed the defendant came forward to pay the entire amounts, which was due. In the meanwhile considering the misconduct of the defendant, the plaintiff initiated disciplinary action and after enquiry he was dismissed from service. The private complaints filed by the defendant came to be closed on filing of 'B' report by Police. The defendant in his complaints has alleged that, the plaintiff is anti-Hindu, anti- Kannadiga and anti-SC/ST and that the plaintiff tried to convert him to Christianity. But if the plaintiff was so it would not have hired the 69 OS No.26137/2011 defendant at all. The plaintiff is a minority institution, which never knew the cast of the defendant. Only after a false complaint and the Spl. C.C. was filed under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act by the defendant. The plaintiff hospital got to know the defendant caste. The defendant has made allegations and publications in various newspapers making false allegations that, the plaintiff hospital was trying to sell lands which were granted by the Government to make money and closed public road. But the lands were purchased by the plaintiff hospital for valuable consideration under sale deeds at Ex.P.24 to 28. There was no Shiva temple inside the hospital premises. But to create religious disharmony instigated the public by libelous publications. The defendant got libelous statement published in the papers. Under law the defamatory words are 70 OS No.26137/2011 presumed to be false. But the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption by giving acceptable evidence. At para 6, 7, 9, 11 and 14 of the written statement the defendant has admitted that, the plaintiff hospital is running smoothly without any caste, creed or sex discrimination and upon his failure to clear the Wockhard Hospital bill, the plaintiff cleared the same and has reiterated that the plaintiff hospital troubled him since he belongs to SC/ST caste and tried to induce its employees to convert him from Hindu to Christianity and he filed several private complaints, which were closed with 'B' reports. The plaintiff counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of B.M.Thimmaiah -V/s- T.M.Rukmini reported in AIR 2013 KAR 81, which is a case where damages has been awarded for defamation. Thus the plaintiff counsel argues that, the plaintiff's suit 71 OS No.26137/2011 should be decreed as prayed for. Further, the plaintiff's counsel submits that the defendant has already been convicted for the subject matter defamation under section 500 of Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.14932/2012 by judgment dtd. 16.2.2019 as per Ex.P. 34.
23. In rebuttal the defendant's counsel by filing written arguments contends that the suit has been filed with ulterior motive to harass the defendant. The defendant had made representations to the Director of the plaintiff hospital where he was working, for payment of his salary and reimbursement of medical bill. The defendant made no defamatory allegations against the plaintiff's institution. The representation was only requests made not to deduct from his salary towards medical bill, which was due to his financial 72 OS No.26137/2011 constraints. The defendant filed PCR No. 25853/2010 against individual persons and not the plaintiff hospital. Similarly PCR No.40046/2010, PCR No.25853/2010, complaint in Crime No.262/2010 U/Sec. 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3(10) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, were against individual persons and not the plaintiff hospital. PW2 examined on behalf of the plaintiff admits under Cross-examination that the aforesaid private complaints and complaint in Crime No.262/2010 were filed against individual persons and not against the plaintiff's hospital. The defendant has not issued the Press statements produced at Ex.P.18 to 23. Defendant's counsel argues that, the said paper publications were published/issued by the Ex-MLA/State President of 'Kannada Vedike' by name Prabhakar Reddy. Even though the published newspaper articles show that 73 OS No.26137/2011 the said Press statements were issued by the aforesaid Prabhakar Reddy, the plaintiff has not made any case against him, instead has filed this suit against the defendant to take revenge against him in view of the representations submitted by him regarding deductions from his salary and not making reimbursements of his medical bill. The suit is vindictive in nature and therefore liable to be dismissed. The PW2 admits in cross-examination that the defendant had approached Labour Court in regard to non-payment of his medical bill by the plaintiff hospital. Though the P.W.2 states that the Press Note was released by K.Prabhakar Reddy, Ex- MLA and State President of Kannada Vedike. Lingaraju, Ex-Chairmen of the Panchayath, she admits that the plaintiff has not filed any case against K.Prabhakar Reddy and Lingaraju. She admits the she is not sure about the existence of 74 OS No.26137/2011 road in the village map within the plaintiff hospital boundaries. She also admits that, a representative suit has been filed by villagers of Hebbal village, where the plaintiff's hospital is situated in O.S.No.9368/2013 alleging that the plaintiff hospital has demolished a Shiva temple in the hospital compound and blocked public path. PW1 admits the same in her cross-examination. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has filed a false suit to take revenge against the defendant. The decision in 2013 AIR KAR 81 relied on by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the four essentials needed for establishing the tort of defamation are not made-out. The plaintiff was required to prove that the criminal complaints or FIR was initiated against it without reasonable and probable cause. Since the defendant met with an accident and 75 OS No.26137/2011 sustained injuries to his head, he suffers from loss of memory and he is heard of hearing. The defendant has produced the Judgment and decree passed in MVC No. 5141/2015 which is the claim petition made by him in respect of the said accident, it shows that the defendant has sustained serious injuries to his head. Therefore, stray admissions if any in his cross-examination is not to be treated as admission. The plaintiff in its written arguments has placed reliance on the defendant/ DW1's admission in his cross-examination. But since the defendant has suffered loss of memory due to head injuries sustained by him. The said admissions relied on by the plaintiff should be ignored. The defendant has not published any defamatory statements against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not produced any material evidence to show that, it has suffered damages of 76 OS No.26137/2011 Rs.25 lakhs. The plaintiff has not proved any of the issues. On the said grounds the defendant counsel has prayed for dismissing the suit. The defendant counsel has placed reliance on the following:-
1) AIR 2007 SC 976.
2) (2009) 13 SCC 729.
3) 2010(4) JCC 2547.
4) AIR 1971 Allahabad 109.
5) AIR 1961, MP 329.
24. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Datta Sharma Vs. Daya Sopra (Smt), reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, Learned counsel for defendant argues that the judgment in criminal case is not binding in a civil proceeding and therefore, the judgment in C.C.No.14932/20212 marked at Ex.P.34 should not be taken into consideration in this case.
77
OS No.26137/2011
25. In the first place I would like to consider the contention regarding the Accused being already convicted in respect of the same subject matter for the offfence punishable u/s 500 of Indian Penal Code. Law is very clear in that aspect, as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that a decision in a criminal case will not be binding in deciding a civil dispute in regard to the same matter. Civil dispute will have to be decided independently. Therefore, also the judgment of conviction for the offfence u/s 500 of Indian Penal Code in C.C. No.14932/2012 cannot be taken into consideration for adjudicating the issues framed in this suit.
26. Now coming to the main dispute in the case there are two sets of defamatory acts imputed against the defendant in the case. First one is the 78 OS No.26137/2011 complaints and representations submitted by the defendant to various authorities such as Chairman, SC and ST (Karnataka State), Chairman National SC and ST Commission Govt. of India, CEO and Director of the Plaintiff Hospital and the Judicial Magistrate. Second is the publication of the articles/paper statements in the Newspapers. First, I would like to deal with the complaints and representations submitted by the defendant to various authorities which have already been extracted supra.
27. The representation/complaints submitted by the defendant as can be seen have either been submitted to the legally constituted authority or to the head of the Plaintiff institutions. They have been submitted in connection with non- reimbursement of his medical bill for a sum of Rs.2,31,925/-. It is an admitted fact that while the 79 OS No.26137/2011 defendant was in employment in the Plaintiff Hospital he suffered Heart ailment and was initially admitted in the same Hospital. But, thereafter he was shifted to Wackhard Hospital. At Wackhard Hospital, after treatment Bill has been raised for Rs.2,31,925/-. Plaintiff has paid the said bill amount, but afterwards has deducted same in installments from the defendant's salary. This has given rise to acrimonious dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, in respect of which, defendant has raised objection before the above said various authorities. In all the representations/ complaints he has demanded that the plaintiff hospital wherein he was employed should be directed to reimburse his medical bills. Plaintiff's contention is of course that the defendant had got admitted in private Ward which was not admissible and therefore plaintiff has not paid the bill amount. 80
OS No.26137/2011 Yet, defendant's representations/complaints to the lawfully constituted authorities or the head of the institutions where he was working were in relation to his grievance that he ought to have been reimbursed of the medical bills.
28. Legal position in respect of the above said representations/complaints of the defendant is now to be considered. In these representations/ complaints, apart from raising his grievance regarding non-payment of medical bills, he has claimed that the plaintiff's institutions is 'anti- Hindu' 'anti-Kannadiga', and 'anti-SC and ST' and it tried to convert him to Christianity. Whether the said allegation that the plaintiff is 'anti-Hindu' 'anti-Kannadiga' and 'anti-SC and ST' and that he was tried to be converted to Christianity amounts to an act of defamation, for which action can be laid 81 OS No.26137/2011 by the plaintiff, is the pivotal question. No doubt, on the face of the allegation itself it is very serious and it imputes an inimical attitude to the plaintiff institution and tarnishes the reputation. In ordinary course the said allegation unless proved to be true will indeed amounts to an act of defamation on the part of the defendant. But the legal position in the matter requires to be considered. If we look at Exception-8 to section 499 of Indian Penal Code, which define defamation which is culled out supra, according to the same if accusation is preferred in good faith to lawfully constituted authorities, same will not amount to defamation. Even an illustration is appended to Exception-8 of sec.499 of Indian Penal Code. According to the same if in good faith an accusation is made before the Magistrate or the Master, same will not amount to defamation. Here, apart from 82 OS No.26137/2011 the representation/ complaint, the defendant has also filed some private complaints in which the police have filed 'B' report after investigation. The defendant has made those Representations and complaints regarding non reimbursement of his medical bill and in that connection he has further stated that the plaintiff institution is 'anti-Hindu' 'anti-Kannadiga' and 'anti-SC and ST' and tried to convert him to Christianity. It requires to be noted that it could be a perception that the plaintiff was so, in view of non reimbursement of his medical bill. Value opinion or value perception or misperception or misconcepetion will not fall within the purview of 'defamation'. He was working as an employee in the institution, and after his bill was denied, while raising objection he has expressed said opinion. Further, as regards asking him to convert to christianity, he states during cross examination 83 OS No.26137/2011 that while conducting domestic enquiry, when he was alone, members of enquiry committee asked him to convert and there were no other witnesses to the incident. That apart, I deem it appropriate to note a few decisions on the point which are categorical about the position of law in the above matter.
29. In the case of Nishka Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. And anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and another, reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal. 14482, relevant observation is as under:-
"....... Any sort of allegation with a touch of imputation against any person per se cannot be categorised as "defamation". Had it not been so, there cannot be any birth of complaint against anybody. Every complaint is more or less having a touch of imputation. There is a marked difference between 'defamation per se' and 'implied defamation', which is prima facie not actionable. The former manifests only defamation while the latter is an allegation mixed with imputation.84
OS No.26137/2011 The allegation necessarily includes imputation to some extent while the vice versa is not correct".
".............However, to get remedy, if any, a complaint is lodged against any person along with touch of imputation there arises no malice or mens rea to attract defamation. This being the position, I find that the continuance of proceedings of Case No. C-1286/2008 pending before the 9th Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore will be a sheer abuse of process of administration of justice. Hence, all the four revisions stand hereby allowed and accordingly, the proceedings of C-1286/2008 and others stand quashed"
30. Similarly in the case of Mahadev I Todale Vs. Frankfinn Aviationa Services Pvt. Ltd. And ors , reported in 20-17 SCC Online Del 9135, Delhi High Court has made following observations at para-14 (f), (g) and (I):-
"(f) Subsequently, in Anjana Saikia (Das) Vs. Anuradha Das 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 321 it was held that though an action for defamation by statement in the FIR would lie 85 OS No.26137/2011 but only after the FIR case was decided.
Similarly, in Mahavir Singh Vs. Surinder Singh 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 9094 also it was held that mere lodging of the FIR, though it may contain false imputation, does not amount to defaming the person against whom FIR is lodged. To the same effect is Kamlesh Kaur Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2008 SCC OnLine P&H
920.
(g) A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in A.N. Shanmugam Vs. G. Saravanan 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 728 held the filing of a suit for defamation in such circumstances to be a process to escape from criminal prosecution and to make the defendant to come to terms. It was held that if every complainant who lodges the complaint with law enforcing agency is to face civil cases for defamation on the premise that the imputations made in the complaint according to the accused are false, many people fearing such actions on the part of the accused may not come forward to lodge a complaint to the law enforcing agency. It was further held that when an imputation has been made in a complaint made to the law enforcing agency with the belief that such agency would take criminal action against the persons against whom such imputations are 86 OS No.26137/2011 made, the same provides a valid exception taking such act outside the scope of tort of defamation. It was held that the lodging of the complaint with the police could not be considered to be publication of a defamatory statement and that if any wrong is committed by lodging a false complaint with the police and thereby setting the criminal law in motion, it may amount to malicious prosecution for which action can be taken only after disposal of the criminal case, wherein a specific finding is given to that effect.
(i) Thus there is no cause of action for a claim for defamation in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No.7 for the statements made by the defendant No.7 in the complaint and in the FIR lodged by her".
31. Reading of the above position of law stated in the above said two decisions, leaves no room for doubt in the matter. In fact, in both the decisions above, the suits have been quashed at the threshold by holding that the complaints per se do 87 OS No.26137/2011 not constitute defamation. Here, private complaints filed by the defendant have not resulted in any prosecution. As admitted by PW.2 in her cross examination private complaints filed by the defendant wee not against the plaintiff hospital/institution, but they were against individuals. There is no finding after prosecution of the cases that the complaint in respect of the same were initiated without probable cause. In the absence of initiation of prosecution on the basis of the complaint which were preferred by the defendant, it cannot be said that there was malicious prosecution of the plaintiff institution. So, considered from any angle from the above legal position it is manifest that the complaints and representations that were submitted by the defendant against the plaintiff do not constitute an act of defamation on his part, despite the fact 88 OS No.26137/2011 that imputation made therein are serious in nature. It is not pleaded in the plaint that the defendant had published the said allegations of 'anti-Hindu' 'anti-Kannadiga' and 'anti-SC and ST' or the contents of the complaint or representatons to the general public or any third party. Also no evidence is adduced to show that the defendant had published the same to others, besides submitting representations to the lawfully constituted authorities. In fact, in the cross examination of Defendant and his witnesses, an attempt has been made to elicit that the defendant had informed the same or published the same to others. But, defendant/DW.1 and his witnesses Dws.2 and 3 have not admitted the said suggestion. The defendant/DW.1 has admitted that he has informed K.Prabhakara Reddy about the plaintiff hospital. Said admission is not specific. Also in the absence 89 OS No.26137/2011 of pleading that the contents of complaints and representations were published to others, the contention in that connection will not stand. Therefore, the allegations made by the defendant in the representation/complaint to the authorities and head of the Plaintiff Hospital, where he was employed, that the plaintiff is 'anti-Hindu' 'anti- Kannadiga' and 'anti-SC and ST' and was asked to convert, cannot be termed as an act of defamation on his part. If it had been pleaded and proved that the contents were published by defendant, a further/different view would have been necessary.
32. Now, I shall deal with the second set of defamatory act imputed against the defendant which is press statement/New paper reports issued against the plaintiff. Already News paper report and the press statement have been extracted 90 OS No.26137/2011 earlier. Defendant has signed the press statement marked at EX.P36. In his cross examination, defendant/DW.1 admits his signature therein as Ex.36(a). However, he has denied issuing the said press statement saying that the press conference was called in by the Ex-MLA who was also the State President of Kannada Vedike namely K. Prabhakara Reddy and he issued the said press statement. Whereas, plaintiff's counsel has drawn attention to the defendant/ DW.1's statement in his cross examination on the said aspect, which is on page
-21 as below:
"It is true to suggest that in the said press conference I have given statement that the plaintiff hospital has demolished Eshwara temple and closed the public road. I had not called the press conference but the president Prabhakar Reddy had called the same. I was part of the decision making in summoning the press conference. Said Prabhakar Reddy had not worked in the Plaintiff Hospital, but he was an Ex-MLA. I had given information about plaintiff hospital to 91 OS No.26137/2011 him. Now, he is no more. I had given information to him about the plaintiff hospital demolishing Eshwara Temple and closing public road".
Whereas defendant's counsel submits that since defendant has suffered head injury in a Motor accident in respect of which Ex.D7 Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been produced Defendant has not understood the question properly and also has not been able to answer the question properly; he suffers from serious memory loss and it is a stray statement. That in the written statement as well as affidavit filed for examination in chief, defendant has denied issuing the press statement and he has taken clear contention that it was the said K. Prabhakara Reddy who issued the press statement and therefore the above said stray statement in the cross examination of the defendant/DW.1 should not be taken into consideration.
92
OS No.26137/2011
33. However, the defendant has suffered head injury in the motor accident subsequent to the press statement at Ex.P36. When that is so, his signature in Ex.P36 which is marked separately as Ex.P36(a) is not disputed. In the said statement issued to the press it has been alleged that the plaintiff hospital was given land by the Panchayath for construction of hospital. But the said land is being sold for crores of rupees and the money has been misappropriated. It is further alleged that on 03-10-1968, jurisdictional Panchayath registered 5 acres 19 guntas of land on condition that the land should be used only for construction of hospital and should retain an ancient Shiva Temple that existed in the said land. But the management of the hospital has sold a portion of the land for construction of Multi storeyed building and have demolished old Shiva Temple and closed down a 93 OS No.26137/2011 cantonment road and Raja kaluve that existed in the land and tried to sell the said part of the land. Defendant was working in the plaintiff hospital for 34 years and when he protested the same, he was dismissed from the job and BBMP and other authorities have failed to take action in the matter.
34. If the above statement is considered at the face value, it is very clear that the same is defamatory in nature. Law is well settled that the imputed defamatory statement must be understood in the sense that an ordinary person will comprehend. If the above statement is considered, it is clear that ordinary person would think that the plaintiff is misusing the land which had been granted to it by the Panchayath for illegal gain and also plaintiff has demolished the old Shiva Temple. In fact the said statement would create 94 OS No.26137/2011 hatred among a section of people against the plaintiff for demolishing the Temple and has the effect of the people shunning the plaintiff. Therefore, the above said press statement is clearly defamatory in nature, unless truthfulness of the same is established.
35. That being the position, the defendant except for claiming that he has not issued the press statement has not chosen to offer any evidence to prove that the land had been given by the Panchayath to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has sold portion of the land contrary to the restrictions imposed while granting the land for making unlawful gain and has demolished Shiva temple and blocked the cantonment road and closed down Raj Kaluve and has tried to sell the said portion as well. Defendant's counsel has drawn attention to a 95 OS No.26137/2011 suggestion made by the plaintiff to Defendant/ DW.1 during his cross examination, which is on Page-19, as below:-
"It is true to suggest that there is a temple of Eshwar in the compound of the Plaintiff Hospital. It is true to suggest that the Plaintiff's hospital has demolished the said hospital. I do not know the date of demolition even approximately".
According to the above suggestion made to defendant, a temple of Shiva is in existence in the plaintiff hospital, then of-course it is recorded that the plaintiff has demolished the Plaintiff Hospital and the said statement does not go with the previous statement. Then, the defendant has stated that he does not know the date of demolition.
Plaintiff has placed reliance on Ex.P.29 dtd. 11.03.2011 issued by the Office of the Deputy 96 OS No.26137/2011 Commissioner, Bengaluru District. In the said Report it is claimed that it is clearly mentioned that there does not exist Eshwar Temple in the land. On the basis of the same, Plaintiff contends that there did not exist a temple in the land in which the plaintiff hospital exists. Relevant portion of Ex.P.29 is as below:-
"ದನಬಬಕ 09-03-2011 ರಬದನ ತಹಶಮಲಬದರಟಯ, ಬರಬಗಳರರನ ಉತಕರ ತಬಲರಲಕನ, ರಬಜಸಸ ನರಮಕಕಕರನ, ಸವರರಯರಟ ಇರರರರಬದಗರ ಸಸಳ ತನಖರ ಮಬಡರನತರಕಮನರ. ಹರಬಬಬಳ ಗಬಗಮದ ಸ. ನಬ. 13 ರಲಲನ ಒಟನಪ ವಸಕಮರರ 5-19 ಎ/ಗನಬಟ ಇದನದ ಈ ರರಕಕ 5-15 ಎಕರರ/ಗನಬಟ ಯನನನ ತಹಶಮಲಬದರಟ ಬರಬಗಳರರನ ಉತಕರ ತಬಲರಲಕನರರರಬದ ಅಧಕದತ ಜಬಜಪನ ಪತಗ ಸಬಖರಬ ಎಎಲಟಯ ಎನಟಯ /ಎಸಟಯ ಆರಟ/1841/129/68/ಡಆರಟ/247/68 ದನಬಬಕ 23-04- 1969 ರಲಲ ಕದಷಯಮತರ ಉದರದಮಶಕರಕ ಅಬದರರ ಆಸಸತರಗ ಉದರದಮಶಕಬಕಗ ಭರಪರರತರನರ ಮಬಡರನತಬಕರರ. ಈ ಸವರರ ನಬಬರಟ ನಲಲ ಖರಬಬನ 0.04 ಗನಬಟರ ಇದನದ ಈ ವಸಕಮರರದಲಲ ಈಶಸರ ದರಮರಸಬಸನ ಇರನರವದಲಲ".
36. Ex.P.29 shows that the plaintiff had sought for consolidation of Katha in respect of 6 properties in which connection BBMP had sought 97 OS No.26137/2011 report from the office of the Deputy Commissioner. In that connection, the Deputy Commissioner's office has submitted the said Report to the Asst. Revenue Officer of BBMP stating that there is no objection for consolidation of katha in favour of plaintiff. While giving the said Report it is merely stated that in the above said land, there does not exist Shiva temple. Report does not say that earlier also there was no temple of Shiva in the land. However, it is for the defendant to prove that there existed a Shiva Temple in the premises of the plaintiff hospital and the same has been demolished. The defendant has examined Dws.2 and 3 who have deposed that there existed a Shiva temple, but in cross examination they were unable to tell when it was demolished. Also their evidence about prior existence of Shiva temple lacks specific details. Viewed in the light of the same, suggestion 98 OS No.26137/2011 made to defendant/DW.1 which is culled out above, is actually contrary to plaintiff's case. Of-course, the plaintiff has produced copies of Sale Deeds to show its title to the land.
37. Over all evidence shows that defendant has not proved the allegations made in Ex.P.36 press statement. Whereas press statement consists defamatory imputations against the plaintiff Hospital. Hence, in respect of the said second set of defamation imputed against the defendant in regard to issuance of press statement, I am of opinion that there is an act of defamation on the part of defendant. Consequently, Issue No.1 is answered to the effect that the representations and complaints submitted by the defendant to various authorities and court do not amount to defamation, but, the press statement signed by 99 OS No.26137/2011 Defendant at Ex.P.36 alone amounts to tort of defamation on the part of defendant as against the Plaintiff Hospital.
38. Issue No.2:- Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.25,00,000/- from the defendant. No-doubt, plaintiff has suffered serious damage to its reputation because of the paper publications referred above. But, the reputation is not a tangible asset. Quantifying the damages for the loss of reputation is not a task which is easily achieved. Plaintiff has not proved any special damage to it because of the paper publications in question. In these circumstances, defendant's status requires to be taken into consideration. Defendant was admittedly appointed as a menial servant in the livestock Department of the plaintiff hospital and was later at the time of his dismissal from service 100 OS No.26137/2011 he was working as Senior Office Assistant which was of Group D level cadre. Now that, he has been dismissed from the services of the Plaintiff hospital, there is no material on record which shows that he has financial ability to satisfy the damages as sought for by the plaintiff, if an award is made to the said effect. As the defendant is no longer in service and he was aged about 63 years as of filing the suit itself, now he does not possess any financial capacity as can be seen from the records. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that damage can be assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). Consequently, Issue No.2 is answered to the effect that Plaintiff has suffered damages in Rs.10,000/-.
39.Issue Nos.3 and 4:- Now, the important question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the 101 OS No.26137/2011 reliefs at all. The court has held that there is tort of defamation committed by the defendant in respect of Ex.P.36 press statement. Court has also held that the plaintiff has assessed damages at Rs.10,000/- as against its claim of Rs.25,00,000/-. Now, the important aspect is whether at all the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the suit. This is a sensitive case which involves the plaintiff which is a minority institution and the defendant who belongs to SC/ST; a community which is outraged, many times with impunity, complaints whereof reluctantly entertained and barely investigated, besides they being used as pawns by dominant section. Having said same, now it is to be stated that though the defendant is a signatory to Ex.P.36 which would mean that he had knowledge that the same would be published, fact is that the same has been published actually by Ex-MLA K.Prabhakara 102 OS No.26137/2011 Reddy. All the news items are univocal and conspicuous that it was K.Prabhakar Reddy who issued the said paper publication. In some articles in the Headlines itself it is mentioned that K.Prabhakara Reddy expressed furry over the matter. So, from the newspaper articles it is manifestly clear that the paper publication was actually issued by K.Prabhakara Reddy-Ex-MLA and the same has been conspicuously mentioned by the Media in all the articles published. The press has attributed the published news articles to Sri.K.Prabhakara Reddy. Further, one H.R.Linganna who was the Ex-chairman of the Local Panchayath is also a signatory to Ex.P.36. K.Prabhakara Reddy Ex- MLA is also a signatory to Ex.P.36. First allegation in Ex.P.36 is regarding misuse of the property given to the plaintiff hospital by the Panchayath by selling a portion thereof for making money. In the news 103 OS No.26137/2011 articles actually it has been reported that the plaintiff has misused the land given free of cost by the Panchayath. So, the Ex-Chairman of the Panchayath H.R.Linganna and Ex-MLA K.R. Prabhakara Reddy were the better persons who could have explained as to on what basis they made the said press statement about the Panchayath having given land to the plaintiff hospital by imposing conditions mentioned in Ex.P.36. Also being the Ex-MLA and Ex-Panchayath chairman they had better resources to explain and defend the paper publications issued in the case. Similarly with respect to the existence of Shiva temple and its demolition, Ex-MLA having issued the press statement and same having been published at his instance he was actually a necessary party in the suit. But, the plaintiff has not chosen to make K.Prabhakara Reddy and H.R.Linganna as parties in 104 OS No.26137/2011 the suit. When PW.2 was asked about the same, she states that they have not been made parties. Of-course in the cross examination of DW.1, it has come that K.Prabhakara Reddy is no more at present. But, when the suit was filed it is not the case of the Plaintiff that K.Prabhakara Reddy was not alive. Whereas, H.R.Linganna-Ex-chairman of the Panchayath seems to be still alive. In this connection a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Khawar Butt Vs. Asif Nazir Mir and Ors, reported in 2013 (139) DRJ 157 is noteworthy. Ratio of law laid down in the said decision is reflected in the Head note, which is as below:-
"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 7 rule 11(a), Order 6 Rule 16, 17, Order 23 Rule1, Section 151 - Defamation-Damages - Libelous posting-Posting on Internet - Limitation-Suit was filed to claim for damages and for mandatory injunction- Original publication had been made in print, the same was re-published on the Internet - Whether re-105
OS No.26137/2011 publication on the Internet would constitute a fresh publication - Single Publication Rule is more appropriate and pragmatic to apply, rather the Multiple Publication Rule-If there is re-publication of resorted material with a view to reach the different section of the public, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action-Libelous posting on Facebook was posted and booklet containing defamatory material have been circulated with the difference of two months-Held, limitation period for the suit expired on 25.12.2009- Suit to claim damages for libel has not been filed within the period of limitation of one year- Claim is barred by limitation.
Civil Procedure Cod, 1908 Order-7 rule 11(a), Order 6 Rule-16, 17, Order 23 Rule 1, Section 151-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 39 - Adultery - Defamation - Damages - necessary party - Maintainability of suit - Plaintiff alleges adulterous relationship against the defendant No.1 and his wife-Both the parties involved in adulterous relationship must be parties-Plaintiff cannot choose to implead only one of the two- plaintiff consciously impleaded his wife as defendant No.2 and voluntarily withdrew the suit quo her-Held, plaintiff cannot seek to proceed against the defendant no.1-Once having given up the claim against defendant no.2, plaintiff cannot seek to bring her back as a party-Held, plaintiff cannot be permitted to proceed, either, by impleading her wife, or in her absence against the 106 OS No.26137/2011 sole defendant- Application allowed-Suit is dismissed".
Suit in the above decision had been filed for damages for defamation alleging libelous posting in connection with adultery. Although it was a case of adultery, ratio of law stated therein in my opinion does attract to the peculiar and particular facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, because of not making the adulteress as party by holding that if a decision is given against the adulterer in the absence of adulteress, said decision would speak of the conduct of the adulteress as well who is not made a party. In other words, it has be observed that it would also been the conduct of the adulteress which would be under scrutiny and her reputation also be at stake if the suit is proceeded to determine the adulterous relationship. As pointed out though it is not a suit 107 OS No.26137/2011 based on adultery, yet, the suit is for damages for defamation.
40. Here in this suit, K.Prabhakar Reddy being Ex- MLA having actually issued Paper publication any decision at present would also reflect on the conduct of the deceased Ex-MLA and it would also reflect on the conduct of H.R.Linganna-Ex- Chairman of the Panchayath. Even the media was answerable and accountable with respect to the news items published which have been found defamatory. It had responsibly of verifying the new items regarding its authenticity before publishing the same. Undoubtedly, case having got serious repurcations, any decision would reflect on the Media which has reported the articles, as well as, Ex-MLA K.Prabhakar Reddy and H.R.Linganna-Ex- chairman of Hebbal Grama Panchayath. Such being the matter, plaintiff has not chosen to make them 108 OS No.26137/2011 as parties in the suit. Defendant who was an ordinary labourer who had labour disputes with the plaintiff and had made certain allegations alone has been singled out in prosecuting the action for defamation. In the absence of making the above parties as defendants in the suit, a full dressed trial cannot be said to have taken place for an effective adjudication of the dispute. Though a larger plot is perceivable, the suit is not preferred against the main players. In Ex.P.21, Bangalore Kadaga, the news item published mentions what the defendant spoke during the press conference. According to what is attributed to him in the news articles, the defendant merely states that earlier the plaintiff hospital was providing praiseworthy health service to people, but now, after the Hospital trust was dissolved, the plaintiff hospital is following oppressive administration and because he 109 OS No.26137/2011 questioned it, he was dismissed from service. The said statement attributed to him is not defamatory. However, he is held accountable for signing Ex.P.36. The main defamatory statements in the published news articles are attributed to K.Prabhakara Reddy. In the said circumstances, I am of opinion that the plaintiff cannot be granted the reliefs sought for in the suit. Consequently, Issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered in the negative.
41. ISSUE No.5:- For the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.110
OS No.26137/2011 Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
--
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of July, 2021)
--
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
vk 111 OS No.26137/2011 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Lt.Col.Deepak.L.Bunyan P.W.2 Smt.Nirupama Patil-
2. List of witnesses examined for Defendant:-
D.W.1 Sri.K.Muniraju D.W.2 Sri.Kanakaraju @ Raju D.W.3 Sri.Krishnamurthy
3. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Joint Memo dtd. 19.07.1983 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the Order of Labour Court dtd. 30.01.1984 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the letter dtd.
16.06.2008 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the letters issued by Accused dtd. 24.6.2008 Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the letters issued by Accused dtd. 30.01.2008 112 OS No.26137/2011 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the of communication dtd. 4.6.2010 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of the award of punishment dt.01.06.2010 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of the letter dtd.
19.06.2010 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the letter dtd.
10.07.2010 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the letter dtd.
19.07.2010
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the
Representation dtd. 12.07.2010 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of the Order dated 04.03.2011.
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the show cause notice dtd.9.9.2010 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of the show cause notice dtd.25.10.2010 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of the Enquiry report dtd. 11.04.2011 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of the intimation letter dtd. 13.04.2011 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the award dtd.
2.1.2016 113 OS No.26137/2011 Ex.P. 18 Newspaper report of Udayavani dtd. 16.6.2011 Ex.P. 19 Newspaper report of Vijaya Karnataka dtd. 16.6.2011 Ex.P.20 Newspaper report of Ee-Sanje Karnataka dtd.16.6.2011 Ex.P. 21 Newspaper report of Bengalore Khadga dtd. 16.6.2011 Ex.P. 22 Newspaper report of Rajasthan Patrike 16.6.2011 Ex.P.23 Newspaper report of Rajasthan Patrike 16.6.2011 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd. 3.10.1968 Ex.P.25 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd. 3.10.1968 Ex.P.26 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd. 10.04.1968 Ex.P.27 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd. 25.01.1971 Ex.P.28 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd. 12.10.1972 Ex.P.29 Certified copy of the letter dtd.
11.03.2011 114 OS No.26137/2011 Ex.P.30 Certified copy of the strike notice and protest letter dtd. 1.5.2011 Ex.P.31 Certified copy of the B report in Crime No.283/2010 Ex.P.32 Souvenir Ex.P.33 Copy of complaint dtd. 12.7.2010 Ex.P.34 Certified copy of the Judgment dtd. 16.2.2019 in CC No.14932/2012 Ex.P.35 Certified copy of the order dtd.
18.6.2019 in Crl.P.No.4017/2017. Ex.P.36 Press note dated 15.6.2011 Ex.P. 36(a) Signature of Defendant.
4. List of documents exhibited for the Defendant:
Ex.D.1 to 3 Discharge summary issued by Colombia Asia Hospital Ex.D.4 to 6 Medical documents issued by NIMHANS Ex.D.7 Certified copy of the Judgment dtd. 17.06.2019 in MVC No. 5141/205 Ex.D.8 Copy of Indian Express Daily newspaper dtd. 28.9.2011 115 OS No.26137/2011 Ex.D.8(a) Article in Ex.D.8 titled 'Will BBMP act against Big fish'.
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
vk 116 OS No.26137/2011 (Judgment pronounced vide separate Judgment) ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge Mayo Hall, Bengaluru.
117 OS No.26137/2011