The Indian Institute Of Planning ... vs Outlook Publishing (India) ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1787 Del

*          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.

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

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

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

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]