Standard Book Company vs Arun Goel
1996 Latest Caselaw 917 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs from the defendant towards damages incurred by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff tersely stated is as follows. ON07.04.1992 the plaintiff orally consented to be the distributor of third defendant Evergreen Publishing House for the book "Guide to Export and Import Policy 1 April 1992 - 31 March 1997" published by the third defendant on 06.04.1992. On the same day the third defendant authorised one K.S. Advertising and Marketing to release an advertisement in the press for the book. On 09.04.1992 an advertisement was published in the Economic Times, New Delhi. In the advertisement the third defendant did not give the name of the publisher. On 09.04.1992 itself the plaintiff wrote to defendant No.3 to correct the advertisement.

(2) On 14.05.1992, the correct advertisement was made and the plaintiff is only the distributor of the book. On 09.04.1992, a notice was issued by the first defendant in the following terms:

(1)WHEREASit has come to our notice that a book called "Guide to Export and Import Policy 1 April 1992 - 31 March 1997" it has been published by one Evergreen Publishing House Post Box No. 9454, Delhi 110051 and printed by one " R. Tandon, Delhi".

(2)WHEREASit has also come to our notice that an advertisement to promote the sale of the said book appeared in the Economic Times Delhi Edition" dated 09 April, 1992 by one Standard Book Company 125 Municipal Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001.

(3)WHEREASthe said book contains matter and typesetting which have been lifted whole-sale from the two publications namely:- 1. Export and Import Policy 1 April 1992 - 31 March 1997 2. Export and Import Policy 1 April 1992 - 31 March 1997

-Duty Exemption Scheme Standard Input - Output and value addition Norms.

(4)WHEREASthe above action by Evergreen Publishing House and Standard Book Company constitute a violation of the Copyright Law. The actions amount to fraud under the Indian Penal Code. It also results in distortion and misrepresentation of the Central Government's Export and Import Policy which results in the misleading the public.

(5)NOWtherefore, all concerned take notice not to deal in any manner whatsoever in the above said dpubdldication. They are warned that in case they are found dealing in the above pirated edition, the action is an offence cognisable under the law and may result in immediate arrest and imprisonment."

(3) The plaintiff sent a notice to the second defendant Big Database Publishing Pvt. Ltd. for making reckless allegations against the plaintiff and demanded unconditional apology and compensation for Rs. 10 lakhs as defamation. On 26.03.1996 the defendants were set ex parte and the plaintiff was directed to give evidence. On 21.08.1996 Mr. Sant Lal Jain a partner of the plaintiff's Company was examined as PW-1. He has stated in the examination that he has lost his goodwill because of the notice issued by the second defendant that the sale of book has come to a standstill. The plaintiff having business turnover of Rs. 2.5 crores during the year 1992 to 1995.

(4) Question 9 and the answer of that question are as follows:

Q.9Mr. Jain, How much amount you have claimed?

ANS.I have claimed Rs. 1000000.00 (i.e. Rs.5,00,000.00 for loss of image and reputation and Rs. 5,00,000.00 loss of business).

(5) Even in an ex parte matter the plaintiff has not produced any material to sustain the case of the plaintiff. In his reply dated 17.04.1992, the plaintiff stated thus:

UNDER instructions from, and on behalf of my clients, Standard Book Co. 125, Municipal Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001, I respond to your cease and desist notice dated 09.04.1992, which my clients have duly received.

MY clients contend that your unfounded, malicious, motivated, and tendentious allegations, contained in the aforesaid notice dated 09.04.1992 against my clients, have possibly been prompted as a sequel to the Economic Times, Delhi Edition advertisement dated 09.04.1992 as mentioned in the aforesaid notice.

MY clients categorically deny that they have anything to do either with the publication of the book, or the advertisement thereof in the press, except that my clients have verbally consented to be distributor of Evergreen Publishing House. In fact, a after seeking the advertisement, my clients have already approached the publisher to suitably rectify the same and to categorically specify that my clients are barely distributor.

THE fact that my clients are not the publishers has also been admitted in your notice dated 09.04.1992. Under the circumstances my clients take strong exception to your malicious, and defamatory remarks, such as "fraud" etc., that have been contained in the cease and desist notice, which according to my clients, you have distributed far and wide, designed to tarnish my client's image.

YOUR acts of making reckless allegations against my clients as contained in the cease and desist notice, and having freely circulated the said notice far and wide without caring to ascertain the actual position from my clients, have tarnished and lowered the image of my clients in the estimation of the public and the world at large. This mala fide action on your part has consequently resulted in huge financial loss to my clients, which is estimated at Rs. 10 lakhs.

Please, tae notice that, I on behalf of my clients, call upon yourselves to immediately, not in any event later than 15 days from the date of this legal notice tender an unconditional apology to my clients and also to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to my clients towards financial losses, failing which I have specific instructions to move a competent court of law for the redressal of my client's grievances, entirely at your costs and risks, which please note.

ITis, however, the bona fide expectations of my clients that you will immediately tender an unconditional apology to my clients for your misdeeds of involving my client's name in your cease and desist notice, and also duly compensate my clients rather than precipitating a litigation.

(6) There is absolutely no material as to how the plaintiff is injured by the remarks. The plaintiff has completely misunderstood his position in the light of defamation and the claim of damages. The plaintiff has not even filed the documents showing his turnover or any evidence from other independent person showing the status of the Company or Public Witness 1. The account books of the plaintiff's Company and other relevant materials have not been produced to prove the plaintiff's case.

Therefore, do not find any substance in the case of the plaintiff and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.