M/s. Sun TV Ltd. v. Dinamalar (A Partnership Concern)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 04.01.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALO.S.A. NO. 255 OF 2007ANDM.P. NO. 1 OF 20071. M/s. Sun TV Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director "Anna Arivalayam" Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018.2. Mr. M.Kalanithi Maran3. Mr. V.Raja.. Appellants- Vs -1. Dinamalar (A Partnership Concern) No.161-A, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002, rep. by its Partner, Sri.R.Sathiamurthi2.Mr. R.Sathiamurthi.. RespondentsOriginal Side Appeal filed against the order dated 8th Aug.,2007, passed by learned single Judge in O.A. No.898/07 in C.S.No.666/07.For Appellants: Mr. P.S.Raman, SC, for Mr. B.K.Girish NeelakandanFor Respondents: Mr. K.V.Subramanian, SC, for Mr. M.A.Abdul WahabJUDGMENTS.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.The respondents are the plaintiffs, who preferred the suit, C.S.No.666/07 for direction on defendants (appellants herein) to pay theplaintiff a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as damages for the defamation and forpermanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publishing/telecasting or broadcasting the news depicting Mr.Rameshas "Dinamalar Ramesh" or "Owner of Dinamalar" either by way ofpicture, sound or scroll methods in their TV channel, namely, Sun TV,Sun Group TV Network, etc.2. In an application for grant of ad-interim injunction, in themanner as sought for in the suit, learned Judge, by impugned order,made following observation and passed ad-interim injunction :-"21. ..... I do not find that at this stage, it isadvisable to get into the merits and demerits of theclaims of the parties. The plaintiff has noobjection in the publication of any news items exceptin cases where the narration is of such a nature tocause damage to the image of the plaintiff. I do notfind any illegality or irrationality in such a plea.Considering the same, I hold that the plaintiff isentitled to an order of injunction which isrestricted only to the extent of descriptive mannerof depicting the said Ramesh as the son of thepartner of the plaintiff firm or prefixing the nameof the plaintiff's newspaper to the name of Ramesh."3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ramesh isthe son of Dr.R.Krishnamurthy, who is one of the partners of the 1stplaintiff, Dinamalar. The said 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, has alreadypreferred an earlier suit, C.S. No.626/07 for same cause of actionand prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 ofthe suit, who are also defendants in the subsequent suit (C.S.No.666/07), their men, agents, servants, representatives, etc., fromand in any way interfering with the business of the plaintiff,Dinamalar, either by making any publication or any telecast in SunTV, Sun News, Dinakaran or in Tamil Murasu against the plaintiffs,its internal affairs, its partners, employees under the guise ofpublishing or telecasting calling it as news item, thereby attemptingto ruin the business of the plaintiff.In the said suit, though interim injunction was sought for withsimilar prayer as made in the present case, no interim order ofinjunction has been passed and mere notice has been issued on thedefendants. Subsequent suit, i.e., the present one, C.S. No.666/07has been preferred by the same 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, throughanother partner and claimed for damages and similar permanent orderof injunction, suppressing the fact relating to filing of the earliersuit in which notice has been issued. Learned counsel for theappellant, in fact, assailed the institution of the second suit,apart from interim order of injunction as issued in the said suit, onthe following grounds :-a) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, being common to both the suit,consequently, non-disclosure of earlier suit in the present suit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amounts to suppresio veri / suggestio falsi and, therefore, relief ofinterim injunction should not have been granted in the subsequentsuit;b) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, having sued the defendant forbare permanent injunction, having disclosed in the first suit thatthey have suffered damages, are barred from filing the second suitwithout taking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of CivilProcedure; and c) The defendants (appellants herein) are part of the Press andElectronic Media, publication of any news item cannot be restrainedby passing interim order of injunction pursuant to an interlocutoryapplication in a defamatory suit.He placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court inR.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal & Anr. - Vs –J.Jayalalitha & Anr. reported in 2006 (2) LW 377. That case aroseout of a suit for defamation and the appeal was preferred againstorder granting injunction. In the said case, Division Bench observedthat though the expression "freedom of press is not used in Article19, it is included as one of the guarantees under Article 19 (1) (a);right to publish and freedom of press is enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) are sacrosanct and only parameters of restrictions areprovided under Article 19 (2); freedom of speech and expression ofopinion is of paramount importance in a democratic constitution,which envisages changes in the composition of Legislatures andGovernments, and must be preserved". In the said case, it was heldthat the order of single Judge amounted to a gag order or censorshipof press.4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, while tried tosuggest that there are separate cause of action and separate reliefhas been sought for in two different suits, submitted that theplaintiffs are entitled to sue the defendants for damages. Referringto news items published in newspaper "Dinakaran" as well as in the TVchannel, it was submitted that false news were made against theplaintiff firm depicting an ex-employee as one of the partners son.It is stated that false allegation against the plaintiffs hadprejudiced the business of the applicant and in such circumstance, aprima facie case having made out, taking into consideration thebalance of convenience and irreparable loss, learned Judge rightlypassed the impugned order.5. We have noticed the rival contentions as also the order dated8th Aug., 2007, passed by learned Judge in the interlocutoryapplication as was preferred by respondents/plaintiffs.It has been accepted by respondents/plaintiffs that Mr.Ramesh isthe son of Dr.R.Krishnamurthy, who is one of the partners ofDinamalar. It is also admitted at Bar that a free printing orelectronic media/press is independent to report and highlight anyfact, if not distorted and if not issued to malign any individualperson, including a partnership firm or company. It is admitted bycounsel for the appellants/defendants that Mr.Ramesh himself do not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prefix or suffix the word "Dinamalar", i.e., the name of thenewspaper/partnership firm before or after his name. Therefore, theprinting or electronic media/press cannot prefix or suffix name of anewspaper or a partnership firm before the name of Mr.Ramesh. It hasnot been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants/defendantsthat Mr.Ramesh is not the owner of "Dinamalar" and, therefore, nopublicity can be given by any Press through printing or electronicmedia showing Mr.Ramesh as owner of 'Dinamalar'. Such fact havingadmitted, we are of the view that the respondents/plaintiffs has madeout a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction,particularly in the manner as they have sought for.6. So far as the question relating to suppression of factrelating to earlier suit or taking leave under Order II Rule 2 of theCode of Civil Procedure is concerned, we are of the view that nospecific finding could have been given by learned Judge, withouttaking into consideration the evidence as may be placed during trialand merely on the basis of the submission made by the parties.Therefore, learned Judge rightly refused to express any opinion withregard to such objection relating to suppression of fact ormaintainability of the second suit in absence of leave under Order IIRule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.7. So far as impugned order dated 8th Aug., 2007, passed bylearned single Judge is concerned, we have noticed the submission asmade by counsel for the appellants/defendants that learned singleJudge, while held that the plaintiff is entitled to an order ofinjunction, which is restricted to prefixing the name of theplaintiff newspaper to the name of Mr.Ramesh, also observed that theplaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction to the extent ofdescriptive manner of depicting the said Mr.Ramesh as the son of thepartner of the plaintiff firm.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffsaccepted that no such injunction was sought for to the extent ofdescriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of thepartner of the plaintiff firm. This is also clear from the relief assought for in the main suit and application for interim injunction aswas preferred in C.S. No.666/07. We, therefore, hold that the orderof injunction passed by learned Judge dated 8th Aug., 2007, so far asit relates to restricting the appellants/defendants to the extent ofdescriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of thepartner of the plaintiff firm is uncalled for and, thereby, we setaside such part of the observation and order of injunction as issuedby learned single Judge.8. Considering the facts of the case and the stand taken by theparties, we hold that the respondents/plaintiffs is entitled to anorder of injunction, which is restricted only to the extent ofprefixing the name of plaintiff newspaper to the name of Mr.Rameshand/or depicting the said Ramesh as the owner of Dinamalar.Recording the submissions, the injunction granted by learned single https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge dated 8th Aug., 2007, is modified to the extent above. The restof the issues as may be raised, including leave obtained or not orthe maintainability of the second suit may be gone into at the timeof the trial. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaidobservations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed. There shall be no order as to costs.GLNSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Sub Assistant Registrar,Original Side,Madras.104.VRK (co)sg 09/01/08 JUDGMENT IN O.S.A. NO. 255 OF 2007Pronounced on 04.01.2008