New Delhi Television Limited v. M.J Akbar & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 23, 2018/"gsr"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23rd May, 2018 + NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sarojanand Jha & Mr. Biswajit Choudhary, Advs. Versus M.J. AKBAR & ORS. …...Defendants Through: Mr. Arun Monga & Ms. Divya Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for, i) recovery of Rs.25 crores as damages from the defendants viz. a) M.J. Akbar, b) Sushil Gujral, c) Joyeeta Basu, and, d) Prayaag Akbar, being the Managing Editor, Printer and Publisher, Deputy Editor and owner respectively of "The Sunday Guardian" newspaper; ii) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or causing to be published the contents of the defamatory article or any other similar story concerning the plaintiff; and, iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the allegedly defamatory article from their website http://www.sunday-guardian.com. 2. The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued and vide ex parte ad-interim order dated 7th December, 2011, the defendants restrained from republishing or re-circulating the article written on 5th December, 2010 in an any form on its internet website or in physical form of newspaper and from uploading any article which shows the plaintiff in bad light, except the one which had already been published or the material complained against, on its internet website. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement and to which a replication was filed by the plaintiff. 4. Vide order dated 26th April, 2012, the ex parte ad-interim order dated 7th December, 2011 was, without giving any reasons, made absolute during the pendency of the suit. 5. On 3rd September, 2012, the following issues were framed in the suit: "1. Whether the plaint has been singed and rectified and the suit is instituted by a competent person? OPD 2. Whether the article titled NDTV-ICICI loan chicanery saved Roys' authored and published by the Defendants in their newspaper edition dated December 05, 2010 as well as on their website "www.Sunday- guardian.com" is defamatory? OPP 3. Whether the Article titled "NDTV CEO gives reply, Guardian respondents' authored and published by the Defendants in their newspaper edition dated December 05, 2010 as well as on their "www.Sunday-guardian.com" is defamatory? OPP 4. Whether the article titled 'NDTV juggles funds, shares abroad, avoids tax' authored and published by the Defendants in their newspaper edition dated December 05, 2010 as well as on their website "www.Sunday-guardian.com" is defamatory? OPP 5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for perpetual injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case? OPP 6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for mandatory injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case? OPP 7. Whether the defendants are jointly / severally liable to the Plaintiff damages to the tune of Rs.25 crores or any other sum? OPP 8. Relief. and the parties directed to appear before the Joint Registrar on 19th October, 2012 for fixing dates for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff and the plaintiff directed to file affidavits by way of evidence before the said date. 6. The plaintiff did not file any affidavits of evidence by 19th October, 2012. However the Joint Registrar was not holding the Court on 19th October, 2012 and the suit was adjourned to 7th February, 2013. 7. The plaintiff filed IA No.19786/2012 for condonation of delay in filing list of witnesses and which application came up before the Joint Registrar on 31st October, 2012 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued for the date fixed on 7th February, 2013. 8. The plaintiff did not file any affidavits of evidence by 7th February, 2013 also and the Joint Registrar, on the said date adjourned the matter to 15th July, 2013, for consideration of the application of the plaintiff for condonation o