Delhi High Court
M/S Abhinav Outsourcing Pvt Ltd vs Sudeep Jadhav & Anr on 6 May, 2015
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06.05.2015
+ CS(OS) 2965/2011, IA No.18983/2011(u/O.XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC)
M/S ABHINAV OUTSOURCING PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Adv.
versus
SUDEEP JADHAV & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Open Court)
1.
This is a suit seeking permanent & mandatory injunction; and damages
@ Rs. 1 (one) crore. The plaintiff's case is that defamatory, misleading and
injurious statements regarding the plaintiff's business and conduct were posted
on the defendants' websites, i.e., www.complaints-india.com,
www.mouthshut.com and www.consumercomplaints.in; that each of the
statements/complaints were baseless and they ended up damaging the
plaintiff's image and goodwill in the market.
2. The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of immigration
consultancy since the year 1994 and its clientele comprises primarily of
educated people who seek assistance for migration outside the country.
Defendant No.1 sought the plaintiff's assistance for permanent immigration to
Canada. For this purpose, a contract of engagement dated 30th June, 2011 was
entered into (Ex PW-1/3). In terms of the said contract, defendant No.1 was to
qualify the IELTS English language test but he failed to do so. The scores
obtained by defendant No.1 are reproduced as under:
Module Required Band Score Actual Band
Listening 7.5 6.0
Reading 6.5 5.0
Writing 6.5 5.5
Speaking 6.5 6.0
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that being frustrated by his
own failure, defendant No.1 proceeded to defame the plaintiff on the internet;
that statements like "Fraud Immigration Company" (Ex. PW-1/11 & 13),
"Abhinav Immigration services, its a fraud company" (Ex. PW-1/12), "Abhinav
immigration Company is Fraud company" etc. were posted on the other
defendants' websites by defendant No.1 whereby allegations were levelled that
he had been cheated of his monies by the plaintiff in the name of immigration
services. It is submitted that the plaintiff offers guidance to persons who seek
immigration assistance; they are not brokers and there cannot be any guarantee
of success. The prospective candidate must meet the minimum criteria, else
he/she will not qualify to be considered. The defendant failed the requisite
qualifying test in English proficiency.
4. The defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3rd September,
2013. Accordingly, the plaintiff led ex parte evidence of 4 witnesses. The
averments in the plaint are supported by PW-1, who is the Director of the
plaintiff. He deposed inter alia that the plaintiff has an annual budget of Rs.30
lacs for advertising through internet and web related services and has an in-
house internet marketing team which provides dedicated services to the clients,
at an additional cost of Rs.24 lacs.
5. PWs- 2 and 3 are independent witnesses who used to refer business to
the plaintiff. They have deposed that the aforesaid statements made by
defendant No.1 on the internet had a detrimental effect on the goodwill of the
plaintiff and that there was resistance by the persons referred by them for
obtaining immigration services offered by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the loss
suffered by the plaintiff is sought to be quantified. For this, evidence of PW-4
was led who has been working with the plaintiff in the capacity of Chief
Operating Officer and Vice President. He deposes that the net profit of the
plaintiff for the financial years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 was Rs.7,48,000/-
and Rs.63,33,327/-; that however, for the financial year 2013-2014, the
plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs.2,41,40,599; and that the said loss was due to the
defamatory and misleading posts made by defendant No.1 on the other
defendants' websites. Independent reports of the Auditors/Chartered
Accountants have been marked as Ex. PW-4/1, PW-4/2 and PW-4/3.
6. The defendants, having been proceeded ex parte, have led no evidence.
They have also not filed their written statements. In effect, there is no rebuttal
to the case put forth by the plaintiff. In circumstances, there is no reason why
the plaintiff's case, supported by evidence and documents, should not be
believed. Accordingly, the suit ought to be decreed.
7. The suit is decreed in terms of prayers A, B and C of the amended plaint.
Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
8. The suit is disposed off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 06, 2015/vmk/ak
