Você está na página 1de 19

TEAM CODE:

IN THE HONBLE DISTRICT COURT, CHANDIGARH

Mr. Nuan
Plaintiff

v.

TODAY TIMES NEWSPAPER `AGENCY


Defendant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF THE DEFENDANT

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX

OF

AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................................ii

Statutes.................................................................................................................................i
i

Books....................................................................................................................................i
i

Table of Cases....................................................................................................................iii

LIST

OF

ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................vi
STATEMENT

OF

JURISDICTION.....................................................................................................

vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................ viii
QUESTION

OF

LAW........................................................................................................................

OF

ARGUMENTS............................................................................................................

ix
SUMMARY
x

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................................1

CONTENTION

1:

THAT

THE

ALLEGED

PUBLICATION

WAS

NOT

DEFAMATORY.....................................................................................................1

CONTENTION 2:
THE

EFFECT

THAT THE APOLOGY TENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY EFFACE


OF

DEFAMATORY

STATEMENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

PUBLISHED

Table of Contents

ii

EARLIER............................................................................................................3

CONTENTION 3: THAT THE DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE


TOO REMOTE AND THUS NOT AMENABLE

..........................................................................................................................8
PRAYER..................................................................................................................xi

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Index of Authorities

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF STATUTES

Civil procedure code,1908


Indian evidence act,1973

English law statues


Defamation act ,1952

TABLE OF BOOKS

Ratanlal & Dheerajlal The law of Torts 24th ed,2004


Ramaswamy iyer,Law of Tort 10th ed. 2007

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Index of Authorities

iii

TABLE OF CASES
1. T.V. Ramasubba Iyer And Anr. vs A.M. Ahamed Mohideen AIR 1972 Mad 398
2. Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd. vs Thakorlal P. Thakor And Ors. AIR 1936 Bom 114
3.

RIGBY VS HEWIT

(1850) 5 EX. 240

4. Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 155 ER 104

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

List of Abbreviations

vi

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Art article

Bom Bombay

Co.--- corporation

Ed Edition

Er

Mad madras

Ors Others

p. page

para paragraph

SC Supreme Court

SCR supreme court cases

Sec Section

vs

& And

eastern railway

versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Statement of Facts

vii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT STANDS BEFORE THE HONOBLE DISTRICT


COURT OF CHANDIGARH UNDER SECTION 19 OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE COURT, 1908

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Statement of Facts

viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:


Mr Nuan, the plaintiff has filed a suit for damages against defendant
newspaper averring that TODAY TIMES is a newspaper with worldwide
circulation. On its publication dated 28thJuly 2012, it ran a front page story of
a hospital in the Union Territory of Chandigarh under the name of Smart
Hospital which was caricatured as the abattoir of human kidneys for the
purpose of trafficking. There was also a photograph of the front of an office
bearing the name Sui Mi & Co. next to the story. The sole owner of the
company; Mrs. Sui Mi was pregnant during this period. She was depressed
and this led to a pre - term delivery on 4 th August 2012 at 10:00 pm. After
the delivery, she suffered from post partum health issues including post
partum depression; although the child was comparatively healthy. The
plaintiff contacted the legal department of Today Times and claimed
compensation as well as asked them to pay off Mrs. Sui Mis postpartum
medical

expenses

however;

the

same

was

refused

representatives of the newspaper.

CASE OF THE DEFANDANT. :

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

by

the

legal

Statement of Facts

ix

The defendant newspaper denies the averments of the plaintiff and further
pleads that the photo of Sui Mi & Co. was not a part of the article in relation
to kidney trafficking; & that even if it was, the newspaper had issued an
apology in this respect .It is further averred that on 26 th July 2012 an
anonymous person who claimed to be a patient in the hospital made a tweet
on Twitter regarding use of human kidneys for trafficking and the newspaper
published the article based on information given by this anonymous patient.
In any case, the defendant later through its publication dated 5 th August
2012
published an apology. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any
compensation from the defendant.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Question of Law

ix

QUESTION OF LAW

WHETHER THE ALLEGED PUBLICATION OF PHOTO OF SUI MI & CO.


BY TODAY TIMES NEWSPAPER WAS DEFAMATORY OR NOT?

ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether the alleged publication amounts to defamation
or not
2. Whether

the

apology

tendered

by

the

defendant

subsequently efface the effect of defamatory statement


published earlier or not
3. Whether the defendant

had

any

publishing the alleged statement or not

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

justification

for

Question of Law

ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE ALLEGED PUBLICATION AMOUNT TO DEFAMATION OR NOT

The photo of Sui mi &co. which was published in the newspaper was in relation to the recent
turnover of 100 corers which the company recently achieved. It is nowhere related to the kidney
trafficking story that was covered by the newspaper. It can be very well observed that the left
portion was in black & white whereas right portion was in colour.
WHETHER THE APOLOGY TENDERED BY THE DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY EFFACE THE OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENT PUBLISHED EARLIER OR NOT

The newspaper after realising that the some content of the article was defamatory apologised to
the company by a written apology. By publishing apology the defendant has erased the resultant
injury caused by the defamatory statement.
WHETHER THE DEFANDENT HAD ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR
PUBLISHING THE ALLEGED STATEMENT OR NOT
The defendant published the article in good faith. As a responsible paper it
published the article which was related to public good. It was published to
bring out the wrong doings of the hospital which is a crime against the
humanity.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

Summary of Arguments

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xi

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
CONTENTION 1 THAT THE ALLEGED PUBLICATION WAS NOT DEFAMATORY
Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. A mans reputation is his property and if
anybody injures the same, he is liable under the law. on the following two grounds:

(a) that the

photo of Sui Mi & Co. was not a part of the article in relation to kidney trafficking;& (b) that
even if it was, the newspaper had issued an apology.
The distinction between libel (representation in permanent form) and slander (publication of
defamatory material in transient form) under the English law has been discarded under the
Indian law and both are actionable per se without proof of special damage. In order to establish
an action for claiming damages for the tort of defamation, the following essentials are required:
1) The words must be defamatory.
2) The said words must refer to the plaintiff.
3) They must be published.1
Defamatory statement is one which tends to injure the reputation of the plaintiff. It tends to lower
a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make
them shun or avoid that person. An imputation which exposes one to disgrace, and humiliation,
ridicule or contempt is defamatory. A statement may be prima facie defamatory or it may be
innocent apparently, however on account of some latent or secondary meaning,it may be
considered to be defamatory ;in which case it is called as Innuendo. Further the defamatory
statement could be made in different ways- oral, in writing, printed or by exhibition of picture,
statue or effigy or by some conduct. The intention to defame is not necessary and one has to see
of the defamatory statement.
1

Ratanlal and Dheerajlal the law of Torts 24th edition 2004

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xii
The Press or Media do not have any special privilege in this regard and it would be liable for the
tort of defamation like any other individual if it publishes something defamatory.
The photo was not related to the smart hospital. The photo was focused on the recent turnover of
100 corers that the Sui mi & co. has recently touched. There was a clear difference the article
and photo as the article which was written on left hand side was written in the black and white
ant related pictures were also in black white whereas the photo was in colour.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xiii

CONTENTION 2 - THAT THE APOLOGY TENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY EFFACE THE


EFFECT OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENT PUBLISHED EARLIER

The photo was not related to the smart hospital. The photo was focused on the recent turnover of
100 corers that the Sui mi & co. has recently touched. There was a clear difference the article
and photo as the article which was written on left hand side was written in the black and white
and even the related pictures were in black white while the picture of the company was printed
in color so it can be very well pointed out that there was no relation between the defamatory
content of the kidney trafficking and the photo of sui me & co.

But even if the people recognize the photo as related to the defamatory article then for that the
defendants have already published an apology in its newspaper and that can very well explain
the mistake of publication .

There was no intention at all to defame the company. And the newspaper agency today times is
totally innocent and hence it should not be forced to pay compensation.
In England parliament had passed defamation act.,1952.2 According to which if it is proved that1. That the publisher did not intend to publish them of and concerning that other person, and
did not know of circumstances by virtue of which might be understood to refer to them.
2. That the words were not defamatory on the face of them and the publisher did not know
of circumstances by virtue of which they might be understood to be defamatory of that
person and in either case that the publisher exercised all reasonable care in relation to the
2

Ramaswamy Iyer Law of Torts, 10th Edition 2007

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xiv
publication and any reference in this sub section to the publisher shall be construed as
including a reference to any any servant or agent of his who was concerned with the
contents of the publication.
Therefore if defendant make an offer of amends .ie he must publish a suitable correction And
an apology as soon as possible after he came to know that the words published by himwere
considered to be defamatory to the plaintiff if the offer is accepted, no action of defamation is
brought but if it is rejected then the innocent party can avoid liability by proving that
1. The words published by him were published innocently.
2. As soon as he came to know that these words published by him had resulted in
defamation of the plaintiff an offer of amends was made.

In the case of T.V. RAMASUBHA IYER vs A.M.A. MOHINDEEN3 the defendants had
published an article without knowing the presence of the plaintiff. Or with out having
intention to defame him. The plaintiff sued them for defamation . defendant said that
they did not had any intention to defame the plaintiff.
THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. Held that after refering to the English authorities and
also defamation act 1952., came to conclusion that the English case of HULTON AND
CO. VS JONES wherein the majority of the court of appeal and the house of lords, had
stated that innocent publishers of defamatory statement were liable was against justice the
defendant in the present case were therefore not liable.

THAT THE DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE TOO REMOTE AND
THUS NOT AMENABLE
3

T.V. Ramasubba Iyer And Anr. vs A.M. Ahamed Mohideen AIR 1972 Mad 398

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xv
AFTER THE COMMISSION OF A TORT THE QUESTION OF DEFENDENTS LIABILITY ARISES. THE
CONSEQUENCES OF A WRONGFUL ACT MAY BE ENDLESS OR THERE MAY BE CONSEQUENCES
OF CONSEQUENCES . FOR EXAMPLE , A CYCLIST NEGLIGENTLY HITS A PEDESTRIAN WHO WAS
CARRYING A BOMB IN HIS POCKET .WHEN THE PEDESTRIAN IS KNOCKED DOWN , THE BOMB
EXPLODES

. THE PEDESTRIAN

AND FOUR OTHER PERSONS GOING ON THE ROAD DIE AND

TWENTY OTHER PERSONS ARE SEVERLY INJURED

. A BULIDING

NEARBY ENGULFED IN FIRE

AND SOME WOMEN AND CHILDREN THERIN ARE SEVERLY INJURED . THE QUESTION IS CAN THE
CYCLIST BE LIABLE FOR ALL THESE CONSEQUENCES ?
HE IS LIABLE FOR ONLY THOSE CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARE NOT TOO REMOTE FROM HIS
CONDUCT . NO DEFENDENT CAN BE MADE LIABLE AD INFINTUM FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES
WHICH FOLLOW HIS WRONGFUL ACT. ON PRACTICAL GROUNDS , A LINE MUST BE DRAWN
SOMEWHERE AND CERTAIN KINDS OR TYPES OF LOSES , THROUGH A DIRECT RESULT OF
DEFENDENTS CONDUCT , MAY REMAIN UNCOMPESATED .

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DAMAGES DEMANDED FOR THE DEPRESSION , PRE DELIVERY,
MENTAL INJURY AND POST INJURIES ARE TOO REMOTE AND ARE NOT THE DIRECT
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PUBLISH OF THE PHOTO OF

SUI MI & CO. HENCE IT

WILL BE

UNJUSTIFIED TO ASK FOR DAMAGES THAT ARE TOO REMOTE .

THE TEST OF REASONABLE FORESIGHT


ACCORDING

TO THIS TEST, IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF A WRONGFUL ACT COULD HAVE BEEN

FORESEEN BY A REASONABLE PERSON , THEY ARE NOT TOO REMOTE. IF ON THE OTHER HAND ,
A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE FORESEEN THE CONSEQUENCES , THEY ARE TOO
REMOTE .
ACCORDING TO THE OPINION OF

CHAPLIN 5, THE LIABILITY

POLLOCK C.B. IN RIGBY V. HEWIT 4 & GREENLAND V.

OF THE DEFENDANT IS ONLY FOR THOSE CONCEQUENCES WHICH

COULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN BY A REASONABLE MAN PLACED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF

RIGBY VS HEWIT

(1850) 5 EX. 240

Greenland v Chaplin (1850) 155 ER 104

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xvi
THE WRONG DOER . ACCORDING TO IT, IF I COMMIT A WRONG , I SHALL BE LIABLE ONLY FOR
THOSE CONSEQUENCES WHICH I COULD FORESEE FOR WHATEVER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
FORESEEN IS TOO REMOTE. A CONSEQUENCE OF MY WRONGFUL ACT.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

xvii

PRAYER

In the light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced, issues raised and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly prays before this Honble Court to kindly:
DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
OR ADJUDICATE AND DECLARE:

THAT THE ALLEGED PUBLICATION WAS NOT DEFAMATORY

THAT THE APOLOGY TENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY EFFACE THE


EFFECT OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENT PUBLISHED EARLIER

THAT THE DAMAGES CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF ARE TOO


REMOTE AND THUS NOT AMENABLE

And pass any other appropriate order as this Honble Court may deem fit.
And for this act of Kindness, the Counsel for the Respondent, as in duty bound,
shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/Counsel for Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS