IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 3049/2011

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED ..... Plaintiff

Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Vijay Sondhi, Mr. Varun Pareek,

Ms. Anirban Bhattacharya and

Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advs.

versus

M.J.AKBAR and ORS ..... Defendants

Through None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

ORDER

07.12.2011

I.A. No.19538/2011 (for exemption)

Page 1 of 5
 The originals/certified and legible copies of the documents be
filed within eight weeks.

The application is disposed of.

I.A. No.19539/2011 (u/s 149 and 151 CPC)

The plaintiff has applied for obtaining the Court fee for an amount
of Rs.24,42,400/- today at the Treasury, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. An
affidavit in this regard has also been filed along with the Challan. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the said Court fee stamp
papers are likely to be issued within one week and the plaintiff
undertakes to file the same in the Court immediately after its receipt.
In view of the said undertaking and the affidavit placed on record, the
present application is disposed of.

CS(OS) No.3049/2011

Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

Issue summons to the defendants, on filing of process fee and

registered A.D. covers within a week, returnable on 13.01.2012.

I.A. No.19537/2011 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 and 2 CPC)

1. Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13.01.2012.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for damages of Rs.25
Crores, perpetual and mandatory injunction seeking restraint orders
against the defendants from publishing the defamatory articles which
shows the plaintiff in the bad light and also directions whereby the
defendants be directed to remove from the website www.sunday-guardian.com
all such defamatory material.

3. The plaintiff claims itself to be a widely publicized and renown in field of Television
especially in dispensing news, media reports, running
news channel etc. It is stated that the plaintiff has been in operation
since last 23 years and has now become pioneer in media operations and is
well respected news network across India.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff emanates from the articles published

by the defendant No.1 in his newspaper The Sunday Guardian and its online
website www.sunday-guardian.com which the plaintiff alleges to be
defamatory. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the said defendant in
Page 2 of 5
order to show the plaintiff in the bad light or defame the plaintiff has
written an article in his newspaper on December 05, 2010 wherein the
defendant levels several allegations like the juggling of funds, avoiding
taxes by the plaintiff which are, in fact, untrue. All this besides
tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff also lowers the financial
credibility of the plaintiff in financial world and are ex facie
defamatory.

5. The plaintiff also cites other instances in the same article

wherein the words like malfeasance, loan chicanery saved Roys, financial
misdemeanours and malpractices finds mention in the article which not
merely lowers the reputation of the plaintiff but also lowers and
denigrates the persona and repute of Individual Directors Mr. Prannoy Roy
and his wife before the public.

6. The plaintiff contends that the defendants by doing all these acts
created the false impression amongst the public that the plaintiff is
involved in such illegitimate acts when all this is, in fact, untrue.
Pursuant to noticing the said article dated December 05, 2010, the
plaintiff served the legal notice dated December 08, 2010 by their
advocates upon the defendants calling upon them to remove all such
defamatory material.

7. Despite the notice, the defendants chose to dispute and deny such
allegations in the notice and did not remove such material from internet
and rather it is noticed that by October and November 2011, the said
articles are still seen on the internet and commented upon on the social
networking websites.

8. The defendant No.1 is the Editor and the Managing Director of the
newspaper The Sunday Guardian which is also published online on the web
portal having URL: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/. The defendant No.2
is the Printer and Publisher of the said newspaper. The defendant No.3
is the Deputy Editor and she along with defendant No.4 are the Authors of
the defamatory articles mentioned hereinafter.

9. The aforesaid articles continue to be published on

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/ under the hearing ?MOST POPULAR? and
continue to attract readers and adverse comments against the plaintiff.

10. I have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff. It is seen from the record that the article complained of was
published on December 05, 2010 and thus, it can be safely said whatever

damage which has been alleged to have been caused has already been caused during the
Page 3 of 5
passage of the time when this article has remained under
publication and the same shall relevant for the purposes of computation
of damages, if any, claimed by the plaintiff and if it is accepted. It
is also noteworthy that the defendants dispute all such allegations of
the plaintiff which also means that before directing complete removal of
the content of the article, the defendants? stance need to be seen and
heard. At this ex parte ad-interim stage, only the measures to prevent
the repetition of the publication can be made by directing the defendant
not to republish the said article anywhere else either in physical form
or on the internet.

11. I find that the plaintiff has been able to make out the prima facie
case for grant of an ex parte injunction of the nature discussed above
and also balance of the convenience also lies in its favour, as it will
be inconvenienced, if the defendants repeat such publications on the
internet etc. The irreparable damage shall also ensue to the plaintiff at
this stage.

12. Accordingly, I hereby restrain the defendants, their servants,

agents or assigns from (either directly or indirectly) from
republishing or re-circulating the article written on December
05, 2010 in any form on its internet website or in physical form of
newspaper in a news item of the recent date except the material which
already stands published till date. The defendants and their
representatives are also restrained from further uploading any such
article or material complained of on its internet website which shows the
plaintiff in bad light except the one which is already present.

13. Compliance under Order XXXIX, Rule 3 CPC be made within three days.

14. A copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, under the signatures of the Court Master.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

DECEMBER 07, 2011/ka

$ 19

Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5