Calcutta High Court
Ganesh Grains Ltd vs Anushree Bhattacharjee & Ors on 19 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 CAL 1448
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
GA No.2542 of 2018
CS No.191 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GANESH GRAINS LTD.
-Versus-
ANUSHREE BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Saumya Roychowdhury, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
Mr. A.C. Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sukanta Pal, Adv.
...for the defendant nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Ajay Sankar Sanyal, Adv.
...for the defendant nos.3 & 4.
Ms. Arunima Dey, Adv.
Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Adv.
...for the defendant nos.7 & 8.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 19th September, 2018.
The Court : This is an action in defamation. The
plaintiff claims to be a well-known manufacturer and exporter of,
inter alia, atta, maida and all the wheat products. The business
was started in the year 1950 by one Purshottam Das Mimani under
the name and style of "Ganesh Flour Mills" as sole proprietor
thereof. The said Purshottam Das Mimani coined, adopted and
started using the mark "Ganesh" in respect of atta, suji and other
allied products since 1950. Over a period of time the business
expanded and the mark "Ganesh" has acquired goodwill in the
2
market. In view of such success the proprietorship concern was
converted into "Ganesh Wheat Products Pvt. Ltd." on 19th March,
2000 and thereafter changed to "Ganesh Grains Pvt. Ltd." on 4th
January, 2011 thereupon a further change to "Ganesh Grains
Limited" on 28th January, 2011. The petitioner claims that quality
control of the petitioner began at the raw material procurement
stage and it continues through the extensive cleaning process and
most advance grinding process and to the final packaging stage
making the company's policies and epitome of total quality
management. The petitioner has referred to various awards and
certificates as well as achievements.
The present action is based on a post on the facebook by
the defendant no.2 on 19th June, 2018 in which the defendant no.2
has stated that they found piece of bones in a 5 Kg. packet
manufactured by Ganesh from M/s. Jairam Bhandar, Konnagar. This
post has triggered of news items published in the defendant nos.3
and 5. The defendant no.5, however, subsequently stated that the
news items were unverified. The news items, as such, do not show
that the defendants have informed the press about impurity.
In a country where least attention is given to the
quality standard of food grains and there are marketers operating
who have no scruples for quality and the consumer are always at a
vulnerable position, at this stage, it is difficult to arrive at a
finding as to whether the defendant no.2 has intentionally caused
any such posting on the facebook. Ordinarily a customer would not
3
complain of the quality of the products unless the customer is
faced with such a situation. At this stage, it is difficult for
this Court to arrive at a finding that the said defendant nos.1
and 2 or any of them would have any malice against the plaintiff.
The goods have been confiscated by the police and investigation is
pending. In such circumstances, it is premature to come to a
finding that there has been any malice on the part of the
defendant nos.1 and 2. However, having regard to the fact that
the purpose of the posting is fulfilled that is to say that public
became aware that the products of the plaintiff could be sold by
unscrupulous traders by adulterating the original products which
could be a possibility unless the result of the investigation are
known to the parties, in my view the defendant no.2 should remove
the post from the facebook. Accordingly, the defendant no.2 shall
remove the post from facebook within 48 hours from date. However,
the observation made in this order shall not influence the
investigation and/or any future proceedings that may arise upon
the investigation being concluded. The defendant nos.3 and 5 have
not published any fresh news on the basis of the news items
published earlier.
The respondent nos.3 and 4 are represented by Mr. Ajay
Sankar Sanyal, Advocate. Mr. Sanyal has submitted that no fresh publication shall be made by the said defendant concerning the present dispute.
4
The defendant nos.5 and 6 are not represented. Since the respondent nos.5 and 6 have not published any further news on the said issue, they shall not do so till disposal of the suit unless the investigation reveals something else. Similar liberty is also given to the defendant nos.3 and 4. This order proceeds on the basis that there is no adverse finding till date by any competent authority against the plaintiff. Any future statement based on any finding by any competent authority is, however, not injuncted.
The defendant nos.7 and 8 are represented by Ms. Arunima Dey, Advocate. Ms. Dey submits that facebook Inc. operates the facebook service for Indian users and the said defendants are not in a position to take action based on the complaints made by the plaintiffs and the proper remedy would be to request the party responsible for posting the contents to remove the same. The learned Advocate has also prayed for affidavit to be filed in this proceedings and also for rejection of the plaint. However, these are not required to be gone into having regard to the nature of the order passed in this proceedings. The e-mail communication dated 19th September, 2018 is taken on record.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, the allegations made against the defendants are deemed to have been denied.
Leave is given to Mr. Sukanta Paul, Advocate to enter appearance on behalf of the defendant nos.1 and 2 by tomorrow. Similar leave is given to Mr. Ajay Sankar Sanyal, Advocate to 5 enter appearance on behalf of defendant nos.3 and 4. Leave is also given to Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Advocate to enter appearance on behalf of defendant nos.7 and 8 within ten days from date.
The plaintiff shall serve a copy of the plaint along with a duplicate copy of the writ of summons upon Mr. Sukanta Pal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sankar Sanyal, Advocate and Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Advocate representing the defendant nos.1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 7 and 8 respectively. The said defendants have waived service of summons upon the said defendants. The said defendants shall file written statements by 21st December, 2018. It is made clear that the oral objection raised on behalf of the defendant nos.7 and 8 with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court have not been decided and it would be open for the said defendants to raise such objection in the written statement and at the time to trial, if so advised. The plaintiff shall take steps for service of summons upon the defendant nos.5 and 6.
GA No.2542 of 2018 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) A/s.