* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ IA NOS.3039/2009 (U/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC), 5067/2009
(U/O 39 R 4 CPC) IN CS(OS) No. 442/2009
% Date of Decision: MAY O1, 2009
# The Indian Institute of Planning & Management
..... Plaintiffs
! Through: Mr. Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Mr.Amit Sharma, Mr.Kewal
Ahuja and Mr.Neeraj Kumar, Advs.
Versus
$ Outlook Publishing (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
.....Defendants
^ Through: Mr.A.J.Bhambhani with Ms.Nisha Bhambhani,
Ms.Lakshita Sethi and Ms.Ranjita, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1.
Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
1. Both these applications are taken up for disposal together by this common order.
2. The plaintiff is conducting academic courses in national economic planning and entrepreneurship under the name and style of the "The Indian Institute of Planning & Management" IIPM) since 1974. It is stated that the plaintiff has eight centers all over India at various places, i.e., Delhi, Bombay, Pune, Ahmadabad, Hydrabad, Chennai, Bangalore and Gurgaon. The plaintiff is stated to have over 550 faculty members and staff at present.
IA Nos.3039/2009 & 5067/2009 Page 1 of 5
3. The defendant No.1 is the publisher Company of weekly magazine "Outlook", defendant No.2 is the editor-in-chief of the said weekly magazine and defendant No.3 is the publisher and author of the article impugned in the present suit. Defendant No.4 is the printer of the weekly magazine "Outlook" in which the impugned article is printed, published and circulated.
4. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against them in relation to cause of action allegedly arisen to them out of publication of article written in the weekly magazine "Outlook" issue dated 24.06.2008 to 30.06.2008 on page 50 titled as "Racket Game Lobs" and sub title "We need systematic checks to stop rampant profiteering by bogus institutes".
5. It is stated that the plaintiff has also come across another article "student alert" published on 7.7.2008 in "Outlook" magazine.
6. The plaintiff has alleged that the articles published by the defendants in the "Outlook" magazine of issues of 24.06.2008 and 7.7.2008 are in derogatory and defamatory language and were aimed at tarnishing the image of the plaintiff institute. The plaintiff has, therefore, prayed for restraining the defendants from carrying out any defamatory publication against the plaintiff institute.
7. This Court vide its interim order passed on 05.03.2009 had restrained the defendants from publishing any defamatory article against the plaintiff in its magazine "Outlook". When IA Nos.3039/2009 & 5067/2009 Page 2 of 5 the defendants received copy of the said interim order, they filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being IA No.5067/2009 for vacation of the said interim order making out a case justifying the impugned publication. The plaintiff has filed its reply to the application of the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
8. From the pleadings of the parties it is revealed that there is a serious dispute between them about the nature of the impugned publication. The plaintiff feels itself gravely hurt by the impugned publication and has alleged that the said publications are derogatory and defamatory in nature. As against this, the defendants have taken a stand that they have a fundamental right of freedom of expression to express their views and make people know the real truth. The dispute between the parties regarding the nature of the impugned publications will be examined on the basis of evidence that may be produced by them in support of their respective contentions.
9. It is a matter of record that plaintiff is in the business of imparting education under the name and style of Indian Institute of Planning & Management (IIPM) at various places in the country over three decades, i.e. since 1974. The defendants have carried out the impugned publications in their magazine "Outlook" questioning the claims of the plaintiff with regard to campus placements, partnerships with foreign institutions and other related aspects. The defendants claim that whatever they have published by way of impugned publications is substantially true and, therefore, in the IA Nos.3039/2009 & 5067/2009 Page 3 of 5 public interest they were justified in carrying out the impugned publications in exercise of their right of fair comment and freedom of expression of opinion. This is disputed by the plaintiff. Anyway Court will go into all these questions while deciding the suit finally.
10. What interim order during the pendency of the suit will protect the interest of both the parties is the question that has to be considered for deciding these applications. Mr.Bhambhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants contends that in case the interim order dated 05.03.2009 is not modified, then it will prevent the defendants from carrying out any publication regarding the claims of the plaintiff and will thereby throttle their right of fair comment and freedom of expression.
11. In order to resolve this controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the interim injunction order in the following terms:-
(i) The interim order dated 5.3.2009 will not be taken as preventing the defendants from carrying out any further publication in relation to affairs of the plaintiff institute subject to the condition that the defendants will publish counter view of the plaintiff on any such publication in the next issue if the counter view is received by them from the plaintiff within two working days of the date of publication of the defendant's article and in the event of delay in receipt of counter view beyond two days, then the counter view will be published in the subsequent issue. Needless to say that the counter view of the plaintiff shall be published by the defendants in IA Nos.3039/2009 & 5067/2009 Page 4 of 5 their magazine "Outlook" with same prominence in relation to font size and spacing. The counter view of the plaintiff to be given for publication should not exceed half printed page of the magazine. The defendants will not add or subtract anything from the counter view given to them by the plaintiff for publication. But plaintiff before handing over its counter view for publication should ensure that it should not exceed half printed page of the magazine.
(ii) The defendants as and when they intend to publish any article relating to affairs of the plaintiff institute should insert a note at the foot of their article that the readers may look for the counter view of the plaintiff in the next/subsequent issue, if received.
(iii) The defendants will be entitled to publish a rebuttal to the counter view of the plaintiff.
12. The interim order dated 5.3.2009 is modified in terms referred hereinabove and this modification is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on merits of the case.
13. Both these IAs stand disposed of accordingly.
14. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
May 01, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL
vg [JUDGE]
IA Nos.3039/2009 & 5067/2009 Page 5 of 5