Ganesh Grains Ltd. vs Anushree Bhattacharjee & Ors

The Court : This is an action in defamation. The plaintiff claims to be a well-known manufacturer and exporter of, inter alia, atta, maida and all the

wheat products. The business was started in the year 1950 by one Purshottam Das Mimani under the name and style of “Ganesh Flour Mills†as

sole proprietor thereof. The said Purshottam Das Mimani coined, adopted and started using the mark “Ganesh†in respect of atta, suji and other

allied products since 1950. Over a period of time the business expanded and the mark “Ganesh†has acquired goodwill in the market. In view of

such success the proprietorship concern was converted into “Ganesh Wheat Products Pvt. Ltd.†on 19th March, 2000 and thereafter changed to

“Ganesh Grains Pvt. Ltd.†on 4th January, 2011 thereupon a further change to “Ganesh Grains Limited†on 28th January, 2011. The

petitioner claims that quality control of the petitioner began at the raw material procurement stage and it continues through the extensive cleaning

process and most advance grinding process and to the final packaging stage making the company’s policies and epitome of total quality

management. The petitioner has referred to various awards and certificates as well as achievements.

The present action is based on a post on the facebook by the defendant no.2 on 19th June, 2018 in which the defendant no.2 has stated that they found

piece of bones in a 5 Kg. packet manufactured by Ganesh from M/s. Jairam Bhandar, Konnagar. This post has triggered of news items published in

the defendant nos.3 and 5. The defendant no.5, however, subsequently stated that the news items were unverified. The news items, as such, do not

show that the defendants have informed the press about impurity.

In a country where least attention is given to the quality standard of food grains and there are marketers operating who have no scruples for quality

and the consumer are always at a vulnerable position, at this stage, it is difficult to arrive at a finding as to whether the defendant no.2 has intentionally

caused any such posting on the facebook. Ordinarily a customer would not complain of the quality of the products unless the customer is faced with

such a situation. At this stage, it is difficult for this Court to arrive at a finding that the said defendant nos.1 and 2 or any of them would have any

malice against the plaintiff. The goods have been confiscated by the police and investigation is pending.

In such circumstances, it is premature to come to a finding that there has been any malice on the part of the defendant nos.1 and 2. However, having

regard to the fact that the purpose of the posting is fulfilled that is to say that public became aware that the products of the plaintiff could be sold by

unscrupulous traders by adulterating the original products which could be a possibility unless the result of the investigation are known to the parties, in

my view the defendant no.2 should remove the post from the facebook. Accordingly, the defendant no.2 shall remove the post from facebook within

48 hours from date. However, the observation made in this order shall not influence the investigation and/or any future proceedings that may arise

upon the investigation being concluded. The defendant nos.3 and 5 have not published any fresh news on the basis of the news items published earlier.

The respondent nos.3 and 4 are represented by Mr. Ajay Sankar Sanyal, Advocate. Mr. Sanyal has submitted that no fresh publication shall be made

by the said defendant concerning the present dispute. The defendant nos.5 and 6 are not represented. Since the respondent nos.5 and 6 have not

published any further news on the said issue, they shall not do so till disposal of the suit unless the investigation reveals something else. Similar liberty

is also given to the defendant nos.3 and 4. This order proceeds on the basis that there is no adverse finding till date by any competent authority against

the plaintiff. Any future statement based on any finding by any competent authority is, however, not injuncted.

The defendant nos.7 and 8 are represented by Ms. Arunima Dey, Advocate. Ms. Dey submits that facebook Inc. operates the facebook service for

Indian users and the said defendants are not in a position to take action based on the complaints made by the plaintiffs and the proper remedy would

be to request the party responsible for posting the contents to remove the same. The learned Advocate has also prayed for affidavit to be filed in this

proceedings and also for rejection of the plaint. However, these are not required to be gone into having regard to the nature of the order passed in this

proceedings. The e-mail communication dated 19th September, 2018 is taken on record.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, the allegations made against the defendants are deemed to have been denied. Leave is given to Mr.

Sukanta Paul, Advocate to enter appearance on behalf of the defendant nos.1 and 2 by tomorrow. Similar leave is given to Mr. Ajay Sankar Sanyal,

Advocate to enter appearance on behalf of defendant nos.3 and 4. Leave is also given to Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Advocate to enter appearance on

behalf of defendant nos.7 and 8 within ten days from date.

The plaintiff shall serve a copy of the plaint along with a duplicate copy of the writ of summons upon Mr. Sukanta Pal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Sankar

Sanyal, Advocate and Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Advocate representing the defendant nos.1 and 2, 3 and 4 and 7 and 8 respectively. The said

defendants have waived service of summons upon the said defendants. The said defendants shall file written statements by 21st December, 2018.

It is made clear that the oral objection raised on behalf of the defendant nos.7 and 8 with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court have not been decided

and it would be open for the said defendants to raise such objection in the written statement and at the time to trial, if so advised. The plaintiff shall

take steps for service of summons upon the defendant nos.5 and 6. GA No.2542 of 2018 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.