Disposed

India Today News v. Sri. H. Anandappa

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2022MFA/7885/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal filed under CPC provisions against an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining news channels from reporting on specific criminal cases, the High Court of Karnataka observed that the order restricted only defamatory, scandalous, or derogatory contents regarding a religious trust and its functionaries, not all reporting. The court held there was no merit in entertai

What the court decided

AI extract

India Today News Vs Sri. H. Anandappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7885 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

INDIA TODAY NEWS, BENGALURU OFFICE AT NO.201-204, 2^ND FLOOR, RICHMOND TOWERS, NO.12, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. REP. BY EDITOR IN CHIEF.

¶8

HEADLINES TODAY, ENGLISH TV NEWS CHANNEL, THE INDIA GROUP, "MEDIAPLEX", FC-8, SECTOR-16, FILM CITY, NOIDA, UTTARA PRADESH - 201 301. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

AAJ TAK, HINDI NEWS CHANNEL, Digitally signed by THE INDIA GROUP, GURURAJ D "MEDIAPLEX" Location: High Court Of Karnataka FC-8, SECTOR-16, FILM CITY, NOIDA, UTTARA PARDESH - 201 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

(THE COMPANY IS WRONGLY ARRAYED IN ITS CHANNEL NAME OF "INDIA TODAY NEWS" AS DEFENDANT NO.33, "HEADLINES TODAY" AS DEFENDANT NO.40 AND IN ITS

¶11

¶12

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶13

BUSINESS NAME OF "AAJ TAK" AS DEFENDANT NO.41 IN THE SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.6692/2022)

¶14

M/S. T.V TODAY NETWORK LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT "MEDIAPLEX", FC-8, SECTOR-16, FILM CITY, NOIDA - 201 301. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. M.N. NASSER KABIR, (ABOVE IS THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION) …APPELLANTS

¶15

[BY SRI. HARISH NARASAPPA, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND:

¶16

SRI. H. ANANDAPPA, S/O H.M. HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.0-0, NEAR AMMA PUBLIC SCHOOL, MATAKURUBARAHATTI, CHITRADURGA - 577 502.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6692/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-60, ISSUING AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 33, 35 TO 49, 55 ON I.A.NO.I.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Challenging order dated 18.10.2022 26.08.2022 passed

¶24

by LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60) in O.S.no.6692/2022 on I.A.no.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, this appeal is filed.

¶25

Appellants herein were defendants no.33, 40 and 41, while respondents herein was plaintiff in suit. They are referred to as such in this order.

¶26

O.S.no.6692/2022 was filed for permanent injunction against defendants. In said suit, I.A.no.1 was filed for grant of ex parte ad interim order of temporary injunction against telecasting, publishing, putting up, broadcasting, advertisement or any contents, visuals, clippings, videos or statements which are of defamatory, scandalous, derogatory articles in respect of Muruga Mutt and its functionaries and Dr.Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru or their disciples and also other accused in Crime no.0182/2022 registered by Nazarbad Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Section 5(L), 6, 7 of POCSO and Section 376(2)(n), 376(3) read with Section 149 of IPC and also in respect of Crime no.0445/2022

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶29

registered against Sri. Shivamurthy Sharanaru and other accused by Chitradurga Police Station in view of transfer of Crime no.0182/2022 from Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore City

¶30

and further in respect of any FIR likely to be registered against Sri. Shivamurthy Sharanaru, which are untrue and defamatory in nature through Print Media, Tele Media, Websites or in any other manner pending disposal of above suit.

¶31

Trial Court allowed I.A.no.1 granting ex-parte adinterim injunction against defendants no.1 to 33, and 35 to 49 etc.

¶32

Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed by defendants no.33, 40, and 41.

¶33

Sri. Harish Narasappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. B Pramod, Advocate for appellants submitted that under impugned order dated 18.10.2022, learned LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-60) pending consideration of I.A.no.1 in O.S.no.6692/2022, granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction against reporting from telecasting, publishing, putting up, broadcasting, advertisement or any contents, visuals, clipping, videos or statements which

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶36

were defamatory, scandalous, derogatory articles in respect of Muruga Mutt and its functionaries and disciples of Muruga Mutt registered by Nazirabad Police Station in Crime no.182/2022 and in FIR no.445/2022 registered by Chitradurga Rural Police Station, which shall be in force till next date of hearing.

¶37

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that impugned order was virtually total gag order against reporting about criminal case, which would be contrary to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was further submitted that trial Court had not even stated reasons for granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction and impugned order would be against to observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Ors. v/s Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr. , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 603 , wherein paragraph no.28, it was held as follows:

¶38

“28. There is necessarily a public interest in the dissemination of news and information. Any guidelines to regulate a restrain on publication of news items would be restricted to the boundaries of India and would not in any manner restrict the electronic media, the foreign media or the media outside India from publishing the article/news items which could be transmitted over the airwaves and Internet through the myriad websites."

¶39

¶40

MFA No. 7885 of 2022

¶41

On perusal of impugned order, it is seen that impugned order is not in nature of a complete gag against reporting in respect of Crime no.182/2022. Restriction is only against publication of contents which were defamatory, scandalous and derogatory against Muruga Mutt, its functionaries and disciples. Same cannot be considered as a complete ban against reporting and appellants would be justified in making fair reporting.

¶42

In view of same, I do not see any merit to entertain

¶43

this appeal, especially at this stage, since appellants would be entitled to seek for vacating or modification of impugned order.

¶44

With above observations, appeal is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

GRD

India Today News v. Sri. H. Anandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

India Today News v. Sri. H. Anandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sainath Reddy Vs Jayalakshmi

Smt P G Deepthi Vs a S Bheemappa

Sri. K Balasubramani Vs Sri. Bheemashen Kamble

Smt Lakshmidevi Vs Gundappa

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Sahasralingeshwara Enterprises

Smt. Girijamma Vs Sri K H Ramalinga Reddy