In a criminal application challenging the issuance of process for defamation, the court held that the defence of truth was unavailable because proceedings against the company were pending. The application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
apl67.2016
1/3
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2016
Ketan Anil Shah .... Applicant Vs.
Financial Technologies (India) .... Respondents Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Sandeep R. Karnik, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. N.S. Jain, A.P.P. for respondent - State. Mr. Aabad Ponda a/w Manik Joshi, Priyanka Patel i/by M/s Crawford Bayley & Co. for Respondent no.1
Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 13th February, 2017
PC :-
1 This application challenges the order dtd. 18th November, 2015, by which the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai issued process against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 is a Public Limited Company, listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange having substantial goodwill and reputation with more than 60,000 shareholders. The applicant is one of the shareholders. Respondent no.1 filed private complaint being CC No.198/SW of 2015 alleging as
apl67.2016
2/3
Dusane
under :
“Ketan Shah has been writing and publishing articles, comments, blog-spots and editorials through the general electronic media i.e. on the social networking websites www.facebook.com, www.twitter.com and www.blogspot.com from time to time since October, 2013. It has been brought to the notice of the complainant that all his posts are utterly malicious containing false, highly derogatory and grossly defamatory statements and misleading data, mischievous information and insinuations against the complainant company and its directors with the sole intention of tarnishing the otherwise impeccable and unblemished reputation of the complainant company and its directors with intent to cause irreparable damage to their goodwill as well as to cause them substantial monetary losses.”
The copies of the downloaded material are annexed to the complaint. The trial Court, on perusal of the extract of imputations has observed that the contents of the language of the publication is prima facie, per se, defamatory, so far as respondent no.1 Company is concerned.
2 Mr.Karnik , the learned advocate for the applicant submits that respondent no.1 -Company is one of the accused in C.R. No.89 of 2013 registered with E.O.W., which has been referred to in the complaint itself. He alleges that the applicant who is one of the witnesses in the complaint against respondent
Dusane
3/3 apl67.2016
no.1 is being targeted in this manner with an oblique motive to pressurise him. The second argument of Mr. Karnik is that there is in fact mismanagement and misappropriation by the Company of which the applicant himself is one of the victims as the shareholder of the Company. Therefore the statements made by him are true.
3 Perusal of the annexures to the complaint supports the view of the trial court that the imputations contained therein are per se defamatory. Since the imputations have been published over the Social Networking Websites, it's publication cannot be denied. Even if respondent no.1 is an accused in the offence registered with E.O.W., the proceedings against it are still pending. Hence, the defence of truth cannot be available to the applicant as of now. Therefore, there is no infirmity whatsoever with the order of issuance of process by the trial Court. Hence, the application is dismissed.
(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the defence of truth was available to the applicant considering pending proceedings against the company.
Whether there was any infirmity in the order of issuance of process against the applicant for defamation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ketan Anil Shah
Financial Technologies (India) Ltd.
R.P. SondurBaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
