Delhi High Court
New Delhi Television Limited vs S.K. Srivastava on 31 January, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 153/2012
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sarojanand Jha, Ms. Naina Dubey
and Ms. Priya, Advs.
Versus
S.K. SRIVASTAVA ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Om Prakash and Mr. Pradeep
Kumar Tripathi, Advs.
Ms. Sonali Negi, Adv. for Mr. Vishnu
Sharma, Adv. for applicant in IA
No.15018/2015.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 31.01.2018
IA No.1195/2012 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)
1. In this suit for recovery of damages (the senior counsel for the plaintiff
states, for defamation) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant
from further publishing or causing to be published the defamatory contents
with respect to the plaintiff, vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 20th January,
2012 (which continues to be in force), the defendant was restrained from
publishing/circulating any defamatory material, internet publication and
material as contained in the application dated 24 th November, 2011 filed by
the defendant before the Special Judge, New Delhi.
2. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued that (i) the defendant, at
the time of filing of the suit, was working in the Income Tax Department (the
counsel for the defendant states that the defendant is still working in the
Income Tax Department); (ii) the defendant filed an application before the
Court of Sh. O.P. Saini, Special Judge, containing defamatory content with
respect to the plaintiff; (iii) the said application was dismissed; (iv) the
defendant upholded the said application and/or contents thereof on the
internet and also handed over copies of the same to various other news
channels and news agencies.
3. I have asked the senior counsel for the plaintiff, how there can be
defamation with respect to what is stated in the course of legal proceedings
and whether not there is an absolute privilege in such matter.
4. The senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant has also
uploaded the application on the internet.
5. I have further enquired from the senior counsel for the plaintiff,
whether not in the concept of 'Open Court', the loading of the application as
it is on the internet, without anything further, would also only be
dissemination of what is stated/pleaded in the Court and covered by the
concept of 'Open Court'.
6. The senior counsel for the plaintiff, on specific query, confirms that the
defendant, outside the Court, has only circulated the application filed before
the Court as it is and nothing more.
7. At this stage, the senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the
defendant has also written and published articles with the same contents as
the application.
8. These questions are left open for consideration at appropriate stage.
9. I have also asked the senior counsel for the plaintiff, that nearly six
years having lapsed since the institution of the suit, what is the last allegedly
defamatory act done by the defendant.
10. The senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff is seeking a
direction at this stage for removal of whatsoever was earlier uploaded by the
defendant on the internet.
11. Such a direction can be issued only at the final stage.
12. Today, the application is disposed of by confirming the interim order
dated 20th January, 2012 but by clarifying that the same will not come in the
way of the defendant stating anything before any legal fora.
IA No.765/2014 (of plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-2A CPC)
13. The senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant, inspite of
the order dated 20th January, 2012, filed an application before the Disputes
Resolution Panel under the Income Tax Act, 1961, with the same allegations
as made in the application before Sh. O.P. Saini, Special Judge and which
application stood dismissed. It is further contended that a writ petition filed
by defendant on the same allegations also stood dismissed prior thereto. It is
yet further argued, that the Disputes Resolution Panel also stated that it is not
a judicial forum and dismissed the application filed by the defendant before it.
14. The order dated 20th January, 2012 does not restrain the defendant from
approaching other legal fora. Even otherwise, for approaching other legal
fora, there can be no violation of the interim injunction. Moreover, the
injunction granted was conditional in the sense that the defendant was
restrained from publishing/circulating defamatory material. It is still to be
determined in trial, whether the material published is defamatory or not.
15. There is no merit in the application.
16. Dismissed.
IA No.4792/2014 (of defendant u/O VI R-17 CPC)
17. The senior counsel for the plaintiff, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the plaintiff, has no objection to the application being allowed.
18. Issues have not been framed in the suit as yet. The amendments sought
are found to be necessary for determining the controversy in the suit.
19. Allowed and disposed of.
IA No.4797/2014 (of defendant u/O VIII R-3 CPC)
20. The additional documents sought to be filed are in support of the
defence sought to be taken by way of amendment and are allowed.
21. The application is disposed of.
IA No.15018/2015 (of Mr. S. Gurumurthy u/O I R-10 CPC)
22. Ms. Sonali Negi, Advocate appears for the applicant and states that Mr.
Vishnu Sharma, Advocate for the applicant is not available and she does not
know anything about the case.
23. Dismissed for non-prosecution.
CS(OS) No.153/2012
24. No amended written statement is stated to have been filed with the
application for amendment which has been allowed as aforesaid.
25. The same be filed on or before 7th February, 2018 with advance copy to
the counsel for the plaintiff. If the amended written statement is not so filed,
the right of the defendant to file amended written statement shall stand closed.
26. Replication thereto, if any be filed within thirty days from the date of
receipt of advance copy thereof.
27. The parties to file affidavits of admission/denial of each other's
documents before the next date of hearing.
28. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents along with its
replication in response to the additional documents filed by the defendant.
29. List for framing of issues, if any on 27th July, 2018.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JANUARY 31, 2018
'bs'
