Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) It is the contention of the defendant that aavin is a cooperative body and it has its own set of customers. The interference by the Government in cooperative societies is limited. The Government only appoints a Civil Servant as a Managing Director of Aavin and except such a function, the government has nothing to interfere with the affairs of aavin. It is an independent body and the allegations of the plaintiffs that the defendant is promoting the products of aavin is baseless.

(viii) It is the further contention of the defendant that he, as a Minister of the State has no obligation to market the products of aavin. In fact, several http://www.judis.nic.in tests were conducted by the Government to ensure the quality with which aavin milk and milk products are sold. If the products supplied by aavin are found to be adulterated, appropriate action will be taken against the erring officials and there will not be any discrimination in taking action against those who indulged in adulteration. The defendant reiterated that he came to know about adulteration in the milk or milk products manufactured and supplied by certain companies by adding neutralizers, starch, sugar cane, salt, hydrogen products, pesticide, urea, formaldehyde and detergents. Whenever such information relating to adulteration is brought to his notice, the defendant asserts that as a Minister of the State, he has every right to test the products and to take further course of action in that direction, including launching criminal prosecution against the errands.

14. Referring to the observations made by the learned single Judge in para No.46 of the order under challenge to the effect that “no one can disparage a class of products of manufacturers within which plaintiffs fall and then raise a defence that the plaintiffs have not been specifically identified”, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would contend that such a finding relating to theory of disparagement is clearly misconceived. The appellant is not a competitor nor a spokesperson of aavin milk. He is a Minister and he has an obligation to disseminate information to the general public. The statements that were made by him to promote aavin milk product is therefore unsustainable especially when manufacturers of aavin are not a party to the suit. However, the learned single Judge observed that tort of disparagement could apply even in cases where defendant is not a party, for http://www.judis.nic.in which no precedent has been quoted.

31. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would contend that personally, none has a right to cripple or prevent the defendant, in his capacity as a Minister, from warning the adulterants of food product or creating awareness among the general public towards adulteration in food substance by unscrupulous operators. What is done in public interest by the defendant cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny at the instance of the private enterprises. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant, the statement made by the defendant is not intended towards the plaintiffs, rather, they are generic. The concept of generic disparagement which exists amongst the competitors cannot be applied to the present case where the statements made by the appellant/defendant in his capacity as Minister of the State has been made in good faith. Aavin is a society incorporated under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The defendant/appellant is not the spokes person of Aavin and therefore it would be futile to contend that the defendant does not hold an obligation to disseminate information to the general public. The statements made by the defendant are not intended to promote the Aavin milk or milk products. The http://www.judis.nic.in defendant is a Minister and holding a public office under the State Government, therefore, he is competent to make such statement in good faith. Therefore, the averment that the defendant attempted to promote Aavin and it's products cannot hold good when Aavin was not arrayed as a party to the lis. Aavin's functions and the decisions are taken on its own, which cannot be put against the defendant. However, the learned single Judge, while granting interim injunction, concluded that even the tort of disparagement would apply in cases where the defendant is not a competitor.