Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. As regards the prima facie case for grant of interim injunction, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would contend that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for interim injunction to restrain the appellant/ defendant from discharging his functions as a Minister of the State. Even assuming that some statements have been made by the appellant/defendant with an intention to bring down the reputation of the plaintiffs, it has to be gone into only during the course of trial and it cannot be adjudicated while granting interim injunction. Even the learned single Judge has rendered a finding that it would be advisable for the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence to justify their rival stand. While so, the learned Judge ought not to have granted interim injunction restraining the appellant/ defendant from discharging his duties as a Minister of the State. To lend http://www.judis.nic.in support to this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal in Bonnard vs. Perryman, 1892 2 Ch 269 wherein it was held as follows:-

Therefore, the learned single Judge is not right in restraining the appellant/defendant even before the so-called defamatory statements were adjudged and as to whether those statements cause damage to the plaintiffs. In this context, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bonnard vs. Perryman mentioned supra to contend that an action for defamation is so special that it require exceptional caution in exercising jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. When the claim or rival claim made by the parties have to be subjected to trial, the learned single Judge, even before trial, is not right in putting the cart before the horse. This is more so that there is no material to show the extent of monetary loss suffered by the plaintiffs owing to the so- called statement made by the defendant. In the plaint, in para-10, the plaintiffs themselves admit that they have not ascertained the loss in their business. While so, the alleged damage claimed by the plaintiffs is imaginary and in such event, the learned single Judge ought not to have granted an interim injunction. The learned counsel would further contend that this Court http://www.judis.nic.in in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 15 of the Letters patent can correct the errors committed by the learned single Judge in granting an interim injunction as could be evident from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Buddula Lakshmaiah vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases page No.52 wherein it was held as follows:-

32. As regards the balance of convenience for grant of interim injunction, the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that it is not known whom the defendant had meant in the press statements. If one knows who the defendant meant in his statement, it must be shown that the defendant had made his statement against a specific class of persons. It can either be no one or someone and not both. In such a situation, the parties must be directed to establish their respective cases only during trial without pre-determining the issue and granting interim injunction. Therefore, the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that grant of interim injunction before examining the nature of statements and intention in making such statement is not warranted and he prayed for allowing the appeal.

35. The application for interim injunction was opposed by the defendant by contending that if an order of interim injunction is granted, it http://www.judis.nic.in would have a bearing on his freedom of speech and expression. Further, it was contended that the statements made by him are generic and not specific. The statements are not intended against a particular class of persons but they were made to create awareness among the general public to be cautious in the matter of consumption of food or food products which are free from any adulteration. While so, the defendant would defend that his statements cannot be regarded as the one which were made against any particular individual, much less the plaintiffs, rather, they were made only against those who indulge in adulteration in milk or milk products.