Gujarat High Court
Synergy Techno Solutions Private ... vs Sharanya Belachhikkate Rathnakar on 10 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 257 of 2024
==========================================================
SYNERGY TECHNO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Versus
SHARANYA BELACHHIKKATE RATHNAKAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA C YAGNIK(8228) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
JAYANI B SHAH(8495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR DIPEN K DAVE(3296) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 10/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal from order is filed under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1908), by the original plaintiffs against the rejection of their injunction application filed below Exhibit 5 dated 9th October 2024 in Special Civil Suit No. 266 of 2024 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural.
The parties will be referred to by their original positions.
2. The short facts which are necessary to decide the appeal are narrated herein under:
Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 2.1 Appellants (plaintiffs) have filed Special Civil Suit No. 266 of 2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, against respondent (defendants) seeking a permanent injunction and damages. According to the case of plaintiffs, due to the acts of the defendants defaming the plaintiffs' image in public at large, they have suffered huge embarrassment at personal and business levels, which also harmed their dignity, reputation, and goodwill. Thus, narrating the set of facts in he plaint and alleged acts of defamation by the defendants, the plaintiffs have prayed for damages of ₹1,00,00,000 against the defendants and also asked for a1,00,00,000 against the defendants and also asked for a mandatory injunction to remove articles published on social media and online portals. They have also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making news items concerning the plaintiffs and their business activities on online platforms and social media.
2.2 Plaintiff No. 1 is a private limited company situated in Ahmedabad, whereas Plaintiff No. 2 is the director of Plaintiff Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined No. 1, residing in Gandhinagar. Defendant No. 1 appears to be the sister-in-law of Plaintiff No. 2, whereas Defendant No. 2 is a media house, and Defendant No. 3 is an editor of such media house, namely Belagina Chaligala Patrike.
2.3 As per plaint, Plaintiff No. 2 was born in Karnataka into a middle-class yet well-reputed farmer family. Plaintiff No. 2, being highly educated and hardworking, earned huge respect in her native place. After her marriage, Plaintiff No. 2 shifted with her husband to Ahmedabad. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that due to their hard work, they jointly started Company being Plaintiff No. 1, which was incorporated in 2006. Plaintiff No. 2 has been the director of Plaintiff No. 1 since its incorporation. Its registered office is situated in the Anand Nagar area, falling within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Ahmedabad.
2.4 It is further stated that Defendant No. 1 married with the
Page 3 of 23
Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025
undefined
brother of Plaintiff No. 2 in or around year 2009. After the unfortunate demise of her brother in 2023, due to disharmony between Defendant No. 1 and her in-laws, including Plaintiff No. 2, Defendant No. 1 filed false complaints before the police and the concerned court in Karnataka. The details of such complaints and the relationship between the parties were highlighted in plaint. At the instance of Defendant No. 1, certain news items was published by Defendant No. 2 (a daily Kannada newspaper) on 13th June 2024. The said newspaper, having wide circulation in Karnataka, published these items in the regional language and on the Facebook page of Defendant No. 2.
2.5 When Plaintiff No. 2, through her well-wishers, came to know about the news items, a legal notice was issued to Defendant No. 2, calling upon Defendant No. 2 to withdraw such articles from the social media pages and further publish an unconditional apology in its newspaper.Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 2.6 It is further the case of the plaintiffs that on 19th June 2024, another media house published similar articles. Such media house, knowing the real facts, assured the plaintiffs that no further publications tarnishing the image of the plaintiffs would be made. Nonetheless, Defendant No. 2 did not respond to the notice or show any willingness to tender an unconditional apology or remove the articles from its social media pages, forcing the plaintiffs to file a suit on 3rd July 2024.
2.7 The notice was served upon the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement opposing the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs. However, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not to appear or contest the suit. 2.8 After hearing the parties at length, the trial court, vide its impugned order dated 9th October 2024, rejected the Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined injunction application of the plaintiffs. 2.9 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
3. Submission of the Appellants - plaintiffs 3.1 Learned advocate Ms. Jaini B. Shah appearing for the appellants / plaintiffs would submit that the trial court has committed a gross error of law while rejecting the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs. She would submit that when the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, establishing on record that the defendants committed acts of defamation by publishing false information in its publication dated 13th June 2024 in the newspaper as well as on social media, thereby the image and goodwill of the plaintiffs have been severely affected.
Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 3.2 She would further submit that the trial court erroneously
concluded that there is nothing against Plaintiff No. 1 (the company) and only the name of Plaintiff No. 1 is referred to in the article because Plaintiff No. 2 happens to be its director. 3.3 She would contend that the trial court did not consider the articles in the correct perspective and arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the content of the article contained no defamatory words and was merely published as a news item based on a complaint.
3.4 She would submit that the publication made by Defendant No. 2 was baseless as no formal complaint was registered either with the police or any court, meaning that no such information was available in the public domain. Therefore, Defendant No. 2 could not have published such an article, which maligns the image of the plaintiffs by portraying them as fraudsters or cheaters.
Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 3.5 She would further submit that much later, after the
publication of the news item, Defendant No. 1 filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate in Karnataka against family members of Plaintiff No. 2 and her mother on 6th July 2024. However, this complaint was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which is observed in the impugned order itself that no prima facie case is made out against the accused. 3.6 She would submit that due to the publication of the news item on social media, one of the business associates of Plaintiff No. 1, through a letter dated 28th June 2024, informed Plaintiff No. 1 that the primary vendor registration of the company was put on hold due to the publication. 3.7 She also pointed out that on 30th August 2024, a Chartered Accountant firm, MGP & Associates, wrote to Plaintiff No. 1, stating that the article published on social Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined media could negatively affect the financial credit ratings and upcoming IPO planning of the company.
3.8 Lastly, she would submit that considering the material on record, not only was a prima facie case made out, but the balance of convenience and irreparable loss also tilted in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing the injunction application.
3.9 Based on these submissions, the learned advocate for the appellants requested this court to allow the present appeal, thereby to grant the injunction application of the plaintiffs filed below Exhibit 5.
4. Submission of Respondent No. 1 - Defendant No.1 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Dipen K. Dave, appearing for Respondent No. 1, strongly opposed the admission and Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined granting of the injunction in favour of plaintiffs. He submitted that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs is nothing but a misuse of the process of law and sheer harassment to Defendant No. 1, who is a lady aggrieved after the loss of her husband due to cancer and was cheated by her in-laws, including Plaintiff No. 2. This forced her to file a police complaint against them. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Dave would submit that no law can prevent a person from filing a police complaint against someone if they have reason to believe that such a person committed acts of cheating and fraud. Once a complaint is filed with the police, and any related article is published in the newspaper, the concerned individual cannot claim defamation by filing a suit against the complainant or media house.
4.3 He would state that the police complaint was filed on 10th June 2024, and a copy was provided to Defendant No. 2, Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined following which the news item was published on 13th June 2024 in the newspaper and on its social media page. He would further submit that having no action taken by the police, who might have filed closer report, defendant No.1 has preferred a private compliant before the local Magistrate concern in State of Karnataka, wherein process has been issued. He would further submit that letter of business associates as well as Chartered Accountant dated 20th June 2024 and 30th August 2024 respectively referred by the learned advocate for the appellant are got up one as business associate having its corporate office and factory in Bangladesh and representative office in Hongkong could not have send the translated copy of news item dated 13th June 2024 to plaintiff No.1. The letter of Chartered Accountant is prima facie given an impression that it is an in-house Chartered Accountant of plaintiff No.1 or might be assisting plaintiff No.1 in any respect. He would empathetically submit that there is no reference of those letters in the suit but such copies are submitted at the fag end before the trial Court when relevant queries put tto them and when Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined asked by the concern Court. Learned advocate Mr. Dave made a statement at bar that having himself appeared before the trial Court, he is making the aforesaid statement. 4.4 According to the submissions of learned advocate for Defendant No.1, no cause of action as disclosed by plaintiff No.1 to file the suit and having no defamatory statement made against plaintiff No.2, suit itself is frivolous requires to be rejected at threshold and for such reason, Defendant No.1 has already moved an appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, 1908.
4.5 He would lastly submit that plaintiffs having not established any prima facie case to maintain the suit and in absence of any threat or any apprehension made out on record by the plaintiffs in regards to any future publication by the defendants, there is neither any balance of convenience nor irreparable loss cause to the plaintiffs. So, after making Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined aforesaid submissions, he would request this Court to dismiss this appeal being merit-less.
No other end further submissions are made.
5. Findings of the Court 5.1 Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and gone through the paper book containing the documents which are submitted by the parties before the trial court in the suit. Nonetheless, learned advocates for plaintiffs only relied upon article dated 13th June 2024 for legal otice and aforesaid two letters and no other doucments are relied upon.
5.2 At the outset, it is required to be considered that after examining the controversy in detail, the trial court has not exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff and thereby rejected their injunction application.
Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 5.3 Before adverting into the issue germane in the appeal,
scope and limitation under Order 43 of the code requires to be taken into consideration, for which, I would like to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. Repoted in 1990 Supp. SCC 727. The relevant paras are as under:
"13.On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately.
14.The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713 . (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton and Co. v. Jhanaton 1942 AC 130 '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'."
The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle."
5.4 As per the ratio laid down by the Honorable Apex court of India in aforesaid decision that if the discretion used by the trial court while adjudicating the injunction application, the appellate court normally should not interfere in such discretion used by the trial court be it granting or refusing injunction, as the case may be. It is also well settled that mearly because a second view is possible it is not open for an appellate court to substitute its view by upsetting the view taken by the trial court except in exceptional circumstances, wherein the view taken by the trial court is erroneous, perverse or contrary to the principal of law.
Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 5.5 After hearing both the sides and analyzing the evidence and submissions, the trial court rejected the injunction
application filed by the plaintiffs. It observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation against Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No. 2. The trial court concluded that the articles in question do not contain any explicit defamatory remarks against Plaintiff No. 1 (the company). The reference to Plaintiff No. 1 in the article was solely due to Plaintiff No. 2 being its director, and no separate allegations were made against the company.
5.6 The trial court further noted that the news item published by Defendant No. 2 was based on the police complaint filed by Defendant No. 1. Since the complaint was already filed prior to publication, Defendant No. 2, being a media house, was within its rights to report on it. The court emphasized that no additional evidence was presented to show Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined malice or intent to defame on the part of Defendant No. 2. Even the trial Court has after gone through the article came to the conclusion that same is not defamatory. Pirma facie, this Court would agree with such view as article is published as per the police complaint.
5.7 The trial court also highlighted that the publication did not cause irreparable damage to the plaintiffs, as no further publications were made after the news item dated 13th June 2024. Therefore, the trial court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiffs and declined to grant the injunction.
5.8 It is worth to note that reading translated version of alleged defamatory news item published on 13.06.2024, prima facie, there is no whisper against plaintiff No.1 except referring its name into bracketed portion after the name of plaintiff No.2 who happens to be Director of plaintiff No.1. Thus, I am Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined in agreement with the trial Court that there is nothing against plaintiff No.1 - company. Thereby, it cannot claim that its image is affected in public, as alleged in the suit. 5.9 So far as the case of plaintiff No.2 is concerned, prima facie, if any media house published any news item as per the police complaint, according to my view, no injunction can be granted against such media house, not to publish any news against the plaintiffs. It is to be recognized in democratic country like India, that media is a forth pillar whose job is to make people aware about events which are important and requires to be known to public at large. It is not out of place to mention that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India allow every citizen to have right for free speech and expression. Such fundamental rights of citizens cannot be lightly interfered with by the Court unless there is strong prima facie case made out against the plaintiffs to prove that with an ulterior motive and misuse of its authority, media house is maligning the image of plaintiffs which is not made Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined out in the present case. It is also equally true that under the guise of right of free speech and expression, person cannot be allowed to publish anything for defaming anyone. 5.10 At this stage, I would like to refer and rely upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Bloomberg Television Production Services vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Reported in 2024 (4) Scale 284, wherein it is observed that;
"[5] The three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief, is wellestablished in the jurisprudence of this Court. This test is equally applicable to the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits. However, this three-fold test must not be applied mechanically, Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd, 1996 4 SCC 622, para
38. to the detriment of the other party and in the case of injunctions against journalistic pieces, often to the detriment of the public. While granting interim relief, the court must provide detailed reasons and analyze how the three-fold test is satisfied. A cursory reproduction of the submissions and precedents before the court is not sufficient. The court must explain how the test is satisfied and how the precedents cited apply to the facts of the case.
[7] Significantly, in suits concerning defamation by media platforms and/or journalists, an additional consideration of balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined right to reputation and privacy must be borne in mind, R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 6 SCC 632. The constitutional mandate of protecting journalistic expression cannot be understated, and courts must tread cautiously while granting pre-trial interim injunctions. The standard to be followed may be borrowed from the decision in Bonnard v. Perryman,1891 95 AllER 965. This standard, christened the 'Bonnard standard', laid down by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), has acquired the status of a common law principle for the grant of interim injunctions in defamation suits, Holley vs. Smyth, 1998 1 AllER 853. The Court of Appeal in Bonnard (supra) held as follows: " But it is obvious that the subject-matter of an action for defamation is so special as to require exceptional caution in exercising the jurisdiction to interfere by injunction before the trial of an action to prevent an anticipated wrong. The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of interim injunctions." (emphasis supplied) [8] In Fraser v. Evans, 1969 1 QB 349. the Court of Appeal followed the Bonnard principle and held as follows:
"in so far as the article will be defamatory of Mr. Fraser, it is clear he cannot get an injunction. The Court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest. That has been established for many years ever since Bonnard v. Ferryman,1891 2 Ch 269. 'The reason sometimes given is that the defences of justification and fair comment are for the jury, which is the constitutional Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined tribunal, and not for a Judge. But a better reason is the importance in the public interest that the truth should out." (emphasis supplied) [9] In essence, the grant of a pre-trial injunction against the publication of an article may have severe ramifications on the right to freedom of speech of the author and the public's right to know. An injunction, particularly ex-parte, should not be granted without establishing that the content sought to be restricted is 'malicious' or 'palpably false'. Granting interim injunctions, before the trial commences, in a cavalier manner results in the stifling of public debate. In other words, courts should not grant ex- parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial. In all other cases, injunctions against the publication of material should be granted only after a full- fledged trial is conducted or in exceptional cases, after the respondent is given a chance to make their submissions."
5.11 At this stage, after going through the article which was published by defendant No.2 on 13 th June 2024, prima facie, I am of the view that no such defamatory words are used in the article and the same is only based upon complaint filed by defendant No.1. Prima facie, if contents of such complain is referred and published in the article, such act of defendant No.2 cannot amount to defame the plaintiffs in public.
6. So far as two letters which are referred by learned Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined advocate for the appellants are concerned, prima facie, I am inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the defendant NO.1 that such letters having not referred in the suit and place at the fag end of Exh.5 are not inspiring the confidence about their genuinity. Nonetheless, at this stage, I am not making any final opinion on it. In any case, when there is nothing adverse stated in the article against plaintiff No.1, the reference of aforesaid two letters pales into insignificance.
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error committed by the trial court by rejecting the application of the plaintiffs thereby, refused to grant injunction in favour of the plantiffs as prayed for.
8. Conclusion:
8.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion, reasons and findings, this court would not find any merit in the appeal, which requires to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/257/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/01/2025 undefined 8.2 It is made clear that observations which are made hereinabove by this Court are tentative in nature and made just to decide the present appeal. Any of such observations made by these court will not come in the way of respective parties. The trial Court shall decide the suit in accordance with law as per the evidence made available on record and accordingly adjudicate the issues in accordance with law.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Tue Jan 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 31 23:55:11 IST 2025