AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amitava Lala, J.—This is a suit for damages for defamation, enquiry into damages, perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and/or
each of them and/or servants and/or agents from further publishing the words set out in paragraph 12 hereof or any similar libel upon the Plaintiff
and/or its management along with other consequential reliefs.
The Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned newspaper company and its officials i.e. printer/publisher, Chairman, Editorial Board a Editor-in-
Chief, Executive Editor, Journalist etc.
The Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are members of parliament and legislative Assembly representing a political party.
The Plaintiff company is controlled and managed by the following Executives and the Board of Directors:
Mr. R.N. Tata (Chairman)
Mr. Keshub Mahindra
Mr. N.A. Palkhivala
Mr. Akbar Hydari
Mr. S.A. Savavala
Mr. Mantosh Sondhi
Mr. Nusli N. Wadia
Mr. L.P. Singh
Mr. S.M. Palia
Mr. P.K. Kaul (Financial Institutions'' Nominee)
Mr. Suresh Krishna
Mr. G.P. Gupta (Financial Institutions'' Nominee)
Dr. Jamshed J. Irani (Managing Director)
Mr. K.C. Mehra (Whole-time Director)
Mr. Ishaat Hussain (Whole-time Director)
A copy of the Balance Sheet of the Company,
Page Nos. 361 and 362 is missing
The newspaper was circulated in Calcutta, Jamshedpur and various parts of India and abroad. Several enquiries were made by the share
holders and customers and issued letters of enquiry about the news item at the Plaintiffs office with the jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff issued notice upon all the Defendants giving opportunity to each of the Defendants to publish apology and withdrawal of aforesaid
defamatory statements from the date of the receipt of the letter but none had responded nor given reply thereto.
Ultimately the Plaintiff instituted this suit before this Hon''ble Court and made an interlocutory application before this Hon''ble Court. Ultimately
at the interlocutory stage the concerned personnels of the newspaper on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have tendered their unconditional
apology by filing a statement in the newspaper as follows:
JO allegations against TISCO on Sukinda Valley baseless: OBP regrets error
New Delhi: On the basis of statements made by Janata Dal leaders (1) Ranendra Pratap Swain, MLA, 2) Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patseni, MLA, 3)
R Bihari Barik, MP, The Observer of Business and Politics (dated October 7, 1996) had carried a news item, published under the heading ''Rao,
Patnaik favoured TISCO for chromite mining: Janata Dal Leaders.
In the said news item, among other things, it was stated that J.B. Patnaik, former Chief Minister of Orissa and P.V. Narasimha Rao, former
Prime Minister, has received kickbacks to the tune of Rs. 50 crore for turning a blind eye to TIS Co''s activity in the Sukinda Valley during the
period 1995-96.
The said article also alleged that the entire deal of TISCO regarding the extraction of chromite from Sukinda Valley was a multicrore scam,
from and out of which the Congress Party derived immense benefit during the last general election.
It was further alleged in the said article that the source of money spent in Behrampur, the constituency of the former Prime Minister P.V.
Narasimha Rao, could be traced back to the Tatas.
It was also in clear terms reiterated in the said article that both J.B. Patnaik and Narasimha Rao worked in tandem to give reprieve and
pecuniary benefit to the Tatas and both acted and behaved like trustees and dormant partners of the Tatas and in return the Tatas lavishly funded
the Congress during the general election of 1996.
It was claimed that the matter should be investigated and that it was a fit case for initiating a public interest litigation in the Hon''ble Supreme
Court of India.
However, on further inquiry by the Observer of Business and Politics it was realised that there was no evidence at all for the allegations levelled
against the Tatas. All the allegations were found to be baseless.
The Observer of Business and Politics regrets having reproduced the above stated unfounded accusations against the House of Tatas.
The Observer of Business and Politics apologises to Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. as well as the persons who are incharge of the management
of the said company without any qualification and hesitation for the inconvenience that may have been caused to them in the process.
Both the newspaper cuttings exhibited and kept with the record of the Court.
Since no Defendants contested, the suit appeared before this Hon''ble Court under the heading ''Undefended Suit'' and pending for quite
sometime even then nobody attended this Court on behalf of the Defendant.
At the initial stage Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff stated that since the people concerning the
newspaper being Defendant No. 1 to 5 have tendered their unconditional apology and fresh publication has been given in the newspaper by stating
that the allegations as against TISCO are baseless, they are not inclined to proceed against them claiming any monetary relief save and except the
relief on account of perpetual injunction. On the other hand, they are not only claiming the perpetual injunction as against the Defendant Nos. 6, 7
and 8 i.e. political personnels being the instalment, of all baseless allegations but also claiming monetary relief against them to set an example so that
in future making reckless statements can be stopped or at least minimised.
Although services were made upon the parties but since the monetary relief by way of compensation was sought for in addition to perpetual
injunction I have given direction upon the Plaintiff to make substituted service by way of publication of advertisement in the newspapers. It was
done accordingly and the Plaintiff filed an affidavit-of-service to that extent which is kept with the record.
In spite of such service at no point of time the Defendants being Nos. 6, 7 and 8 appeared before this Court or tendered unconditional
apology.
The situation is so grave that court cannot shut out its eyes after observing such situation. Members of the Legislative Parties representing the
public at large are part of important wing of the democracy. Therefore, as and when such a person making comment as against other he must
know his limitation. Mud throwing neither can help the political parties nor can help the Indian democracy. This is one of the reason for which
judiciary has been called upon to interfere in every alternative stage. The concerned Defendants are so adament that in spite of having opportunities
they did not think to attend the court for tendering an apology for making such baseless allegations. It seems that they wanted to get escape from
the court of law. Under such circumstances, imposition of compensatory benefit to the Plaintiff company in addition to order of injunction is
obvious.
Irresponsible politicians are-spoiling the respect of each and every political party sometimes some Journalists are also cannot avoid
responsibility on their part. There should be a check and balance. Today people of the country is totally confused due to the behaviour of such
irresponsible politicians and they are greater in numbers but leser in quality. The country is in danger. Only the responsible politicians, irrespective
of any political ideology can control them so that the judiciary can take a breathe.
Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff cited a judgment reported in John v. MGN Limited 1996(2) All. E.R. 35 to
establish the case of damages. I find therein that the successful Plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to recover, as a general compensatory
damages, such sum as will compensate him for the wrong he was suffered. A sum must compensate one for the damage to his reputation; vindicate
his good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. In assessing the appropriate
damages for injury to reputation the most important factor is the gravity of the libel; the more closely it touches the Plaintiff''s personal integrity,
professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of its personality, more serious it is likely to be. The extent of publication is
also very relevant libel published to millions has a greater potential to cause damage than a libel published to a handful of people. A successful
Plaintiff may properly look to award of damages to vindicate his reputation ; but the significance of this is must greater in a case where the
Defendant asserts the truth of the libel and refuses any retraction or apology than in a case where the Defendant acknowledges the falsity of what
was published and publicly expresses regret that the libellous publication took place. It is well established that compensatory damages may and
should compensate for additional injury caused to the Plaintiff''s feelings by the Defendant''s conduct of the action, as when he persists in an
unfounded assertion that the publication was true, or refused to apologise, or cross-examine the Plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way.
In action of defamation and in any other actions where damages for loss of reputation are involved, the principle of restitutio in integrum is
necessarily and even more highly the subjective element. Such actions involved a money award which may put the Plaintiff in a purely financial
sense in much stronger position that he was before the wrong not merely can he recover the estimated sum of his past and future losses, but, in
case the libel driven underground, emerges from its lurking place at some future date, he must be able to point to a sum awarded. The essential
element in assessing damages are entitled to look at the whole conduct of the Defendants or the Defendant in particular from the time the libel was
published down to the time of giving their verdict. The court may consider what his conduct before action, after action and in the court during the
hearing of the suit. This Court finds that there is no change from its very inception till the date of hearing. Therefore this reasoning would weigh
strongly against any attempt to equiparate damages for personal injuries and damages for defamation.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled for the following reliefs and is granted accordingly. There will be a
decree in terms of prayer (c) as against the Defendants. There will also be a decree for Rs. 5 lakhs each against each of the Defendant Nos. 6, 7
and 8 for defaming the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff will be at liberty to circulate the order through newspapers. This Court has granted a time to the
Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 for a period of one month from the date of the publication of the order in newspapers to tender unconditional apology
to the Plaintiff through all leading newspapers of the country including the concerned newspaper being Defendant No. 1 to the satisfaction of the
Plaintiff failing therewith the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover the damages awarded by this Court by way of execution. The Plaintiff will be entitled
for a cost for a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 which will be paid by the Defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 irrespective of their tendering apology before the
Court. Decree will be drawn up expeditiously.
The department and all parties and the concerned newspaper entrusted for any publication of the order passed herein are to act on a signed
copy minute of the operative part of the order.