Allowed

The Indian Express Limited and Ors. v. M.J. Akbar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2014S/2258/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte suit for defamation, the Bombay High Court awarded damages and injunctions against newspaper publishers and editors who published false and reckless allegations against the plaintiffs. The defendants, having failed to appear or prove the truth of their statements, were held strictly liable.

What did the court decide?

A decree was passed against Defendants 1 to 4 and 8 to pay Rs. 1 crore to each plaintiff with 21% interest, and against Defendants 5 to 8 to pay Rs. 1 crore to each plaintiff with 21% interest, along

The Indian Express Limited and Ors. Vs M.J… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 2258 OF 1997

¶5

The Indian Express Limited & Others…Plaintiffs
Versus
M.J. Akbar, being the Editor-in-Chief of the …Defendants
Asian Age and others

¶6

Mr. Amol Joshi, with Ms. Poorvi Kamani, for the Plaintiffs.
None for the Defendants.

¶7

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 9th April 2014

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.The suit is listed for exparte decree. The plaintiffs have led
the evidence of the 2nd plaintiff, Sunil Vaman Kaduskar. He was
further examined in chief. A compilation of documents has been
tendered. The documents are marked Exhibit “P1” collectively in
evidence. The originals shall be returned to the advocates for the
plaintiffs upon the documents / compilation being substituted with
photocopies.

¶10

2.The plaintiffs seek damages jointly and severally from
defendants No. 1 to 4 and 8 and also from defendants No. 5 to 8 in
the sum or Rs. 1 crore to each of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs

¶11

1 of 7

¶12

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶13

claimed that the defendants have separately published material that
is per se defamatory of the plaintiffs.

¶14

3.At the relevant time, the 1st defendant was the editor-in-
chief of a newspaper known as The Asian Age. At that time, The
Asian Age was managed and run by the 4th defendant. That
newspaper has now been taken over by Deccan Chronical Holdings
Limited. However, the 4th defendant has not been merged with
Deccan Chronical Holdings Limited and continues to be a distinct
legal entity.

¶15

4.The 2nd defendant was, at the relevant time, the editor of the
Asian Age. The 3rd defendant was its printer and publisher. The 5th
defendant was the chief editor and printer and publisher of an
evening Marathi newspaper known as Sandhyanand, of which the
6th defendant was the executive editor and the 7th defendant
company the owner. The 8th defendant at the relevant time was
the chairman of the company known as Tirupati Allo-Metal
Powders Limited (“Tirupati”). The plaintiffs contend that The
Asian Age had wide circulation in Maharashtra, especially in
Mumbai. Sandhyanand, a Marathi newspaper, was widely circulated
in Pune and Mumbai.

¶16

5.The 1st plaintiff is a company that owns and runs several
newspapers, among them the Marathi newspaper Loksatta. The
2nd plaintiff, who is also the plaintiffs’ witness, was, at the relevant
time, a Pune-based senior reporter for Loksatta. The 3rd plaintiff
was the then editor of Loksatta.

¶17

2 of 7

¶18

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶19

6.Some time in 1996, on the basis of information received by
Loksatta’s reporters in Nagpur and after undertaking a careful and
studied investigation, a three-part set of articles was published in
Loksatta about Tirupati and its then chairman, the present 8th
defendant. The substance of the first article, published on 13th
October 1996, was that the Gadchiroli Police has registered a
criminal case against the 8th defendant and other directors of
Tirupati, all of whom had been accused of raising additional capital
from investors on the basis of fabricated statistics of the Company.
The article stated that the criminal case had been filed by the
founder and former managing director of Tirupati who had since
become editor of another newspaper Adivasi Manus. The article
stated that on 16th April 1996 a case of cheating was registered
against these directors.

¶20

7.A second newsreport was published a day later on 14th
October 1996, which reported that the Chairman of the State Forest
Development Corporation was also a founder member of Tirupati.
He had urged the District Police Chief to arrest the 8th defendant
and other directors. Loksatta’s report also contained the statement
that the 8th defendant denied all allegations made against him.

¶21

8.On 15th October 1996, the third newsreport regarding
Tirupati was published in Loksatta. This final part contain the
statements and clarifications made by the 6th defendant regarding
his resignation as a director of Tirupati.

¶22

9.It was following the publication of this three-parte exposé
that defendants No. 1 to 4 and 8 printed and published (or caused

¶23

3 of 7

¶24

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶25

so to be done) an article on the front page of The Asian Age’s
Mumbai Edition, The Mumbai Age.

¶26

10.This article is described as grossly defamatory. It accuses the
plaintiffs of extortion and alleges that the 2nd plaintiff was arrested.
It also says that the 8th defendant had filed a criminal complaint
against the 2nd plaintiff for extortion and accused the 2nd plaintiff
of being a member of a cartel operated by news reporters in Pune.

¶27

11.In the plaint, the plaintiffs’ have set out the relevant portions
of the offending article. A day after the offending article was
published, Loksatta’s Resident Editor, one Mr. Anil Takalkar, wrote
to the 1st defendant denying the statements made in the offending
article. Elementary precautions of verification had not been taken
by the publishers, editors and journalists of the offending article,
Mr. Takalkar protested. As a matter of fact, there was no criminal
complaint. There was no arrest. A mere complaint did not
automatically entail criminal proceedings. On behalf of Loksatta, its
resident editor demanded a front page apology.

¶28

12.No such correction or apology followed. No retraction was
ever published. The plaintiffs have specifically denied every one of
the statements alleged to be factual in the offending article. In
paragraph 8 of the plaint, at the time when the offending article
claims that the 2nd plaintiff met the 8th defendant and allegedly
blackmailed him, it is pointed out that the 2nd plaintiff was at that
very time in a press conference elsewhere. This is also the
testimony of the plaintiffs’ witness in paragraph 13. Here, the
plaintiffs’ witness has categorically set out that he was invited to

¶29

4 of 7

¶30

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶31

this press conference. He has produced a copy of the invitation. He
has stated that he was at press conference from 3.00 p.m. to 5.00
p.m. and that there were several other journalists whom he met at
the time. All these journalists have confirmed in writing to the
Deccam Gymkhana Police Station that the 2nd plaintiff was indeed
at that press conference. A certificate to that effect has also been
issued by the Manager, Public Relations of the Company that held
the press conference.

¶32

13.On 14th, 15th and 18th October 1996, defendants No. 5 to 8
printed and published three articles in the newspaper Sandhyanand.
All three of these articles contain further material that is also per se
libellous and defamatory of the plaintiffs. These defendants also
accused the plaintiffs of blackmail and extortion. The offending
portions of these articles have been set out in the plaint and have
been deposed to by the plaintiffs’ witness, the 2nd plaintiff.

¶33

14.Although the plaintiffs then demanded a retraction, none was
forthcoming. On 17th October 1996, Loksatta published its
clarification regarding the allegations of extortion and blackmailing
levelled against the 2nd plaintiff. This clarification was described by
the 8th defendant as a false newsreport.

¶34

15.Both sets of articles are, in my view, per se defamatory. There
is manner of doubt that they were intended as a counter attack
following the three-part investigative exposé carried by Loksatta.
But the difference between the offending articles and the Loksatta’s
newsreports could not be more stark. Where Loksatta’s
investigative reporting was verified and published only after

¶35

5 of 7

¶36

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶37

substantial cross-checking, the offending articles by the defendants
contains nothing but false allegations and innuendo. Accusations of
criminal conduct are made against the plaintiffs with reckless
disregard for the truth and for facts. The 2nd plaintiff was accused
of personally blackmailing and extorting money from the 8th
defendant; he was said to have done this at a time when he was
demonstrably physically elsewhere and could not possibly have met
the 8th defendant.

¶38

16.In these circumstances, it is for the defendants to establish
the correctness of what they said in the offending articles. Although
the plaint was duly served, none of the defendants have entered
appearance or filed their written statements. It is not for the
plaintiffs to establish the falsity of the offending article; where truth
is set up as a defence in action for defamation, it is for the
defendants to establish that were stated by him / her was true. This
has not been done.

¶39

17.There is no defence whatever to this suit. The plaintiffs are
entitled to a decree as prayed for. There will, in these
circumstances, be a decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of the plaint, which read as follows:

¶40

“(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree defendants 1 to 4 and 8 jointly and severally to pay to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs as and by way of damages the sum of Rs. One Crore, and Rs. One Crore respectively together with interest on the aforesaid sums at 21% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation thereof;

¶41

(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree defendants 5 to 8 jointly and severally to pay to

¶42

6 of 7

¶43

7-S2258-97.DOC

¶44

the 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs as and by way of damages the sum of Rs. One Crore, and Rs. One Crore respectively together with interest on the aforesaid sums at 21% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation thereof;

¶45

(c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction against defendants 1 to 4 and 8 restraining defendants 1 to 4 and 8 by themselves, their servants, agents, and subordinates from printing and publishing and / or causing to be printed and published of or about the plaintiffs any further articles or news items;

¶46

(d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction against defendants 1 to 4 and 8 restraining defendants 5 to 8 by themselves, their servants, agents, and subordinates from printing and publishing and / or causing to be printed and published of or about the plaintiffs any further articles or news items;”

¶47

18.In addition, the plaintiffs will be entitled to interest at the rate
of 6% per annum on the amounts so decreed.

¶48

19.In addition, the plaintiffs will be entitled to costs quantified
at Rs. 15 lakhs, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of suit till payment or realization.

¶49

20.Decree to be drawn up accordingly. Sealing of decree is
dispensed with.

¶50

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶51

7 of 7

The Indian Express Limited and Ors. v. M.J. Akbar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Express Limited and Ors. v. M.J. Akbar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Arjan Vaswani Vs T Official Liquidator of Mafatlal Engineering Industries Limited (in Liqn.)

Dignity Foundation, a Registered Public Charitable Trust Vs Vision India Events and Conferences Private Limited - U74999PN2001PTC016320

Vishal Trading Co. Proprietorship Firm of Mr. Manish Upadhyay Vs Aayush Tex Dye Private Limited - U171120MH2003PTC142430

Sumit Annil Arora Vs Rashmi Sumit Arora

Sumit Annil Arora Vs Rashmi Sumit Arora

Nihar Construction Private Limited Vs Narendra Mohan Singh