In the written statement, a reference is made to the public
notice issued by the Reserve Bank of India in several newspapers in
respect of the restrictions put on the Janata Commercial Bank Ltd.,
Khamgaon, with which the close connection and control of the
plaintiff and his family members is sought to be established. The
attempt on the part of the defendants to establish the defamatory
allegations prima facie seems to be in good faith and for public good
and interest by producing the material on record. The Trial Court has
committed an error in holding that the provision of law is that the
defamatory articles are presumed to be false unless contrary is proved.
It has also committed an error in prejudging the issue by holding that
the items published have no concern with the public interest or for
public good. The allegations or aspersions made in the articles
prima facie seem to be interlinked. The grant of blanket order of
injunction cannot, therefore, be countenanced and it will have to be
set aside. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff, has relied upon several decisions referred to by the Trial
Court in the impugned order. However, I do not find it necessary to
refer to those judgments at this stage.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Sanj Daily Lokopchar,
through its owner
Kishor Babulbhai Ruparel,
Occupaation – Editor, Owner
and Publisher Sanj Daily
Lokopchar,
Office at Sunny Tower,
Main Road, Khamgaon,
Dist. Buldhana.
Versus
Gokulchand Govindlal Sananda,
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 10 October, 2014
th
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 390
In Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2013 for grant of damages of
Rs.25,00,000/ for the per se defamatory publications and for grant of
permanent injunction restraining the defendantsowner, printer and
publisher of daily newspaper “Sanj Daily Lokopachar” from publishing
news items of defamatory and malicious in nature against the plaintiff
and his family members, the Trial Court has passed an order of
temporary injunction on 1532014. The defendants are restrained
temporarily from publishing any defamatory article as well as other
article relating to plaintiff and his family members, till the final
decision of the suit. The original defendants are before this Court in
this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the
Civil Procedure Code. The parties shall hereinafter be called according
to their original status as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.
Plaintiff Gokul Govindlal Sananda alleges that he and all his
3.
family members, including his four married sons, viz. (i) Dilipkumar
ig
Gokulchand Sananda, (ii) Rajendra Gokulchand Sananda,
(iii) Ashokkumar Gokulchand Sananda, and (iv) Mukeshkumar
Gokulchand Sananda are tax payers, agriculturists, businessmen and
occupying various high ranking positions in private educational
institutions, public religious and charitable Trusts, the municipal and
local bodies, the cooperative banks and rendering social service,
having very high respect, reputation and esteem in the Society.
Son Dilipkumar Gokulchand Sananda is a sitting Member of
Legislative Assembly, having enjoyed continuously three terms and
leading a social and public life. Second son Rajendra Gokulchand
Sananda is a businessman and was a Chairman of Janta Commercial
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khamgaon and also a Director of Agriculture
Produce Market Committee, Khamgaon. He claims to be working with
Shree Swami Samarth Religious Trusts, known to the public at large.
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
4
ao37.14.odt
Third son Ashokkumar Gokulchand Sananda was the President of
Khamgaon Municipal Council and is occupying the position as a
Leader of the opposition party, having contributed in social and
educational fields. Fourth son Mukeshkumar Gokulchand Sananda is
a businessman running an Oil Mill and dealing with oil and cotton
products. The plaintiff claims that his entire joint Hindu family is
contributing in various social, educational and religious fields and they
ig
are carrying out upliftment and development in the Society at large
4.
through their emerged and efficient efforts.
It is alleged in the plaint that defendant Kishor Babubhai
Ruparel is the tenant in the house property purchased by Dilipkumar
Gokulchand Sananda, the son of the plaintiff, and was defaulter in
paying regular rent. There is a dispute between the landlord and
tenant and the said defendant is being proceeded with for eviction and
possession. As a counterblast, it is alleged that the said defendant is
engaged in the activities of wild, reckless and irresponsible journalism
by publishing per se defamatory articles, news items and photographs
in the newspaper “Sanj Daily Lokopachar” contrary and in defiance of
all ethics of journalism, without verifying the truthfulness, public
interest and the correctness of the news. Various instances are quoted
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
5
ao37.14.odt
in the plaint to demonstrate that a series of per se defamatory
articles/photographs and news items containing innuendo are being
published against the plaintiff and his family members daily. The
defendants are calling the plaintiff as illegal money lender, goonda
and don in illegal business of desi liquor. One of the sons of the
plaintiff is described as bewada (addicted to liquor). The deceased
ig
wife of the plaintiff is described as Mandodari, the wife of Ravan.
Another son, who is a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly, is
described as matimand (retarded), balish and matka king. The family
members of the plaintiff have also been called as 'Seth', 'Baba', causing
harm to their reputation and image in the public at large. It is also
alleged that this is violating the right of privacy of family members of
the plaintiff causing unlawful attack on the honour and reputation.
5.
The defendants have filed written statement and reply to the
application for grant of temporary injunction. The relationship of the
plaintiff and the family members is not disputed, though a plea
regarding joint family of the plaintiff has been denied. The defendants
admit that the plaintiff and all his family members are the public
figures. The contention that the plaintiff and his family members
carry very high respect, reputation and esteem in the Society, is
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
6
ao37.14.odt
denied. The relationship of the defendant Kishor Bababhai Ruparel
with Dilipkumar Gokulchand Sananda as landlord and tenant, is
disputed. It is admitted that the defendant Kishor Ruparel is the
owner, printer and publisher of daily newspaper “Sanj Daily
Lokopachar”. It is denied that the articles, news items, photographs of
the plaintiff and his family members published in the said newspaper
are per se defamatory. The averment regarding the plaintiff and his
ig
family are described as illegal money lenders, goonda, don, bewada,
seth, baba, Mandodari, etc., are denied. It is also denied that the
articles, news items and photographs are published without verifying
truthfulness.
6.
It is the specific stand taken in the written statement that
whatever articles, news items and photographs in respect of the
plaintiff and his family members are published in the said newspaper,
the same are made with responsibility after proper verification in
respect of their truthfulness. It is the stand taken that the news items
in respect of the bank are also in utmost public interest and are
published with greatest responsibility. It is the stand taken that the
public at large is put on guard in having transactions with the said
Janata Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khamgaon, controlled by
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
7
ao37.14.odt
the family members of the plaintiff. It is also the stand taken that the
plaintiff and his family members have longstanding criminal
antecedents and they are chargesheeted for that. The defendant
claims that he professes journalism impartially, without fear or favour
and he proposes to justify all such publications by producing material
on record. It is the stand taken that the defendants honestly believe
that the contents of articles, news items and photographs are true and
ig
correct and proposes to establish the same. It is the stand taken that
the publications are based upon the public record, including the
chargesheets and the judgment of this Court and of the Apex Court, in
which very scathing observations are made against the members of the
family of the plaintiff and it remains no longer a right of privacy. All
the comments in the newspaper amount to fair criticism and
bona fide. It is the stand taken that the defendant exercises his
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
in publishing the articles, news items and photographs of the plaintiff
and his family members making out a case under First and Third
Exceptions below Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
7.
The Trial Court has gone through the averments made in the
plaint and the written statement. It notes that the defendants have
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
8
ao37.14.odt
published various new articles referring to various criminal cases
against the plaintiff and his family members. The judgments in
number of money lending cases against Dilipkumar Gokulchand
Sananda are produced. It is observed that the defendants have neither
produced any document to support their new items about Matka King,
Cyber Crime, Matimand, Balish and other per se defamatory words nor
produced any affidavits of witnesses to support those contentions. It
ig
records the finding that the provision of law is that the defamatory
articles are presumed to be false unless contrary is proved. The
decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal
and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported
AIR 1995 SC 264, on the question of right to privacy under Article 21
of the Constitution of India is referred to and the finding is recorded
that the plaintiff has right to safeguard the right of privacy of his own
and family members. It has been held that the items published have
no concern with the public interest and show that the entire family
members of the plaintiff have been defamed. The finding is also
recorded that if the news items are perused minutely, it cannot be said
that those defamatory words are necessary for public good or public
interest. The articles are based upon the rumours and the freedom of
press is not absolute, unlimited or unfettered. The Court has held that
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
9
ao37.14.odt
as per Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction can be
8.
granted to prevent the breach of an obligation.
In paras 112 and 116, the Trial Court has held as under :
“112.
In addition to that, learned advocate for defendants
argued that injunction cannot be granted as equally efficacious
ig
remedy of damages is available to plaintiff. But it is well
settled position that there is nothing important than reputation
to a person. Reputation cannot be compensated in terms of
money. A person requires years together to earn reputation,
but it goes away within a moment. Right of freedom, speech
and expression is subject to various restrictions like respect of
the right and reputation of other. The defendants could have
published these news articles in the better language without
using defamatory words if it was for public interest.”
“116.
The facts of present case are very peculiar in nature.
There is relation of landlord and tenant between plaintiff's son
and defendant no.2. Their relations are strained. The nature
of news articles published by defendants sufficiently show the
intention of defendants to defame plaintiff and his family.
Hence, under such circumstances, it would not be proper to
modify the earlier order. Considering the entire facts, I find
that balance of convenience tilts more in favour of plaintiff
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
10
ao37.14.odt
than defendants.”
The operative portion of the order of temporary injunction passed by
the Trial Court on 1532014 is reproduced below :
Application Exh 5 is allowed.
2) The defendants, their agents, servants, publisher,
ig
“1)
distributors, workers, assignees, representatives, heirs, or
anybody on behalf of the defendants are hereby temporarily
restrained from publishing any defamatory article as well as
other article relating to plaintiff and his family members, till
final decision of this suit.
3)
9.
Costsinthe cause.”
Shri Sangram Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff,
has relied upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India to claim a right
of privacy read with SubArticle (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India and the provision of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shri S.M. Gordey, the learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the defendants, has relied upon the
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
11
ao37.14.odt
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India read with First and
Third Exceptions below Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
10.
For the sake of convenience, the provision of Article 19(1)(a)
and (2) of the Constitution of India being relevant, is reproduced
ig
below :
(a)
“19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,
etc.(1) All citizens shall have the right
to freedom of speech and expression;
(2) Nothing in subclause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the
operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from
making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
subclause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is also relevant and hence it is
reproduced below :
“499. Defamation.Whoever, by words either spoken or
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
12
ao37.14.odt
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is
said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that
person.
Explanation 1. It may amount to defamation to impute
anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm
ig
the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be
hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make
an imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an
alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4. No imputation is said to harm a
person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or
indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of
that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the
credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of
that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally
considered as disgraceful.
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
13
ao37.14.odt
First Exception – Imputation of truth which public good
requires to be made or published. It is not defamation to
impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be
for the public good that the imputation should be made or
published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question
of fact.
Second Exception – Public conduct of public servants. It is
ig
not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever
respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his
public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception – Conduct of any person touching any public
question. It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching
any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.”
The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India provides freedom of speech and expression, including that of
Press publication. It is controlled by Article 19(2) of the Constitution
of India, which contains a safeguard of reasonable restrictions on
exercise of such right. In terms of Section 499 of the Indian Penal
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
14
ao37.14.odt
Code, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of
such person, is said, except in the cases covered by the Exceptions
Thus, the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
ig
11.
below it, to defame that person.
Constitution of India is not an absolute or unfettered publication of
any imputation causing or intending to cause harm to the honour and
the reputation of any person by making reckless and wild allegations
of a defamatory nature. Such an act is not permissible, under the garb
of exercise of right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. If an act of
defamation, as contemplated under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code, is committed, Section 500 of the Penal Code provides the
punishment for a term of two years or with fine or both under Section
500 of the Penal Code. The Exceptions below Section 499 of the
Penal Code, however, provides protection from punishment if a case is
made out under the said Exceptions. This can also be a protection
from any tortious liability of libel. Thus the burden of proof to
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
15
ao37.14.odt
establish a case of defamation or libel is on the complainant or the
plaintiff, who has come before the Court with such a case and the
burden of proof to establish that the case falls under any of the
Exceptions below Section 499 of the Indian penal Code is upon the
12.
person, who commits an alleged act of defamation.
The law on the question of grant of temporary injunction
ig
restraining the defendant from publishing an article, news item or
picture of a defamatory character, is by and large settled. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, referred to by
Shri Gordey, in the case of Abdul Wahab Galadari v. Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd., and others, reported in
AIR 1994 Bombay 69, has considered the principles of law in England
and India. Paras 20, 21, and 22 of the said judgment being relevant,
are reproduced below :
“20. A plea of justification especially put forth by the
newspaper is the subject of judicial pronouncements. For
example in a case of Fraser v. Evans & others,
(1969) 1 All ER 8 Lord Denning observed :
“The Court will not restrain the publication of an article,
even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says that he
intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a mater of
public interest. That has been established for many years ever
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
16
ao37.14.odt
since Bonnard v. Perryman (1) The reason sometimes given is
that the defences of justification and fair comment are for the
jury, which is the constitutional tribunal, and not for a judge;
but a better reason is the importance in the public interest that
the truth should be out.””
“21. The next is the case of Harakas and others v. Baltic
Mercantile and Shipping Exchange Ltd. and another, reported
in (1982) 2 All ER 701, again Lord Denning observed
(at page 703):
ig
“This case raises a matter of principle which must be
observed. This Court never grants an injunction in respect of
libel when it is said by the defendant that the words are true
and that he is going to justify them. So also, when an occasion
is protected by qualified privilege, this Court never grants an
injunction to restrain a slander or libel, to prevent a person
from exercising that privilege, unless it is shown that what the
defendant proposes to say is known by him to be untrue so that
it is clearly malicious. So long as he proposes to say what he
honestly believes to be true, no injunction should be granted
against him. That was made clear in Quartz Hill Consolidated
Gold Mining Co. v. Beall, (1882) 20 Ch D 501.”
“22. The same view has also been adopted by the Division
Bench of this Court comprising of Mookerjee, C.J. And Smt.
Sujata Manohar, J. in an Appeal No.464 of 1989 from Notice
of Motion No.48 of 1989 in Suit No.3907 of 1988 in the case
of Dr. Yashwant Trivedi v. Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., decided on 29th June, 1989 and the
ratio in the case of Harakas and Others v. Baltic mercantile
and Shipping Exchange Ltd., and another (supra) and in
particular the portion quoted above has been approved. The
Division Bench also observed that :
“The crux of the matter is that when in a libel action at
the interlocutory stage the defendant raises plea of justification
and, as in this case, mentions evidence by which he might
substantiate his case, the Court is unlikely to grant an
interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff to restrain
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
17
further publication of the alleged libel.”
ao37.14.odt
In the said Judgment the passage appearing in the treatise on
Libel and Slander by Gatley, Eighth Edition, has been provided
with approval which is also quoted hereinbelow :
13.
ig
“1574. Justification ; Where the defendant swears that
he will be able to justify the words – unless the Court is
satisfied that he will not be able to do so. The validity of a
justification, if pleaded, is eminently a matter to be determined
by a verdict of a jury. When once a defendant says that he is
going to justify the words complained of, there is an end of the
case so far as an interim injunction is concerned, although in a
proper case it may be that the Court will intervene on the
ground of a breach of confidence.”
In the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court,
referred to by Shri Gordey, in the case of R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @
Nakkheeran Gopal v. J. Jailalitha, decided on 642006, the Court has
taken review of English as well as Indian cases. It considers the
celebrated case of R.R. Gajagopal @ R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632, referred to by Shri Sirpurkar, dealing
with the right of privacy of citizens of the country under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the parameters of the right of the press
under Article 19(1)(a) therein to criticize and comment on the acts
and conduct of public officials. It has been held that though the right
to privacy can be characterized as fundamental right, it is not an
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
18
ao37.14.odt
absolute right. It has been held that in a democratic set up, a close
and microscopic examination of private life of public men is a natural
consequence of holding of public offices. It has been held in para 30
that what is good for a private citizen who does not come within the
public gaze may not be true of a person holding public office. What a
person holding public office does within the four walls of his house
does not totally remain a private matter. It has been held that the
ig
scrutiny of public figures by media should not also reach a stage where
it amounts to harassment to the public figures and their family
members and they must be permitted to live and lead their life in
peace. But the public gaze cannot be avoided which is necessary
corollary of their holding public offices.
14.
In para 28 of the judgment of Madras High Court in the case
of R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and another, cited
supra, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sakal Papers (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1962 SC 305, is considered on
the right to publish and the freedom of press enshrined in
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the
freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount
importance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
19
ao37.14.odt
in the composition of legislatures and governments and must be
preserved. It has been held that the interim order granted by the
learned single Judge is a blanket injunction and it amounts to a gag
order or censorship of press and such censorship cannot be
countenanced in the scheme of our constitutional framework. It
further holds that even assuming that the articles published by the
appellants amount to character assassination of the respondents, there
ig
is no justification for granting a blanket injunction restraining the
appellants from publishing any articles in future.
15.
The principle of English law is that in case of an action for
defamation, once the defendant raised the plea of justification at the
interim stage, the plaintiff will not be entitled to interlocutory
injunction. However, in India, mere plea of justification would not be
sufficient for denial of interim relief. The defendant, apart from taking
a plea for justification, will have to show that the statements were
made bona fide and in public interest or public good and the
defendant had taken reasonable care to ascertain the truth and that
the statements were based on sufficient material, which would be
tested for its veracity. The Court is entitled to scrutinize the material,
which can be looked into even at the interlocutory stage. In case of
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
20
ao37.14.odt
conflicting interests under Articles 19(1)(a) of freedom of speech and
expression and Article 21 regarding right of privacy, the Court has to
strike the balance by segregating such interests. The Court has to
consider the effect of one over the other. This cannot be done at an
interlocutory stage, specifically when the allegations or aspersions are
so interlinked that the inhouse conduct of the plaintiff and/or his
family members, which is connected with their public life outside the
ig
house, needs a closure scrutiny in public interest and an attempt is
being made to honestly justify or establish the truth in the allegations
or aspersions made through the articles, news items or pictures. The
grant of temporary injunction would amount to prejudging the issue.
The remedy of the public figure would arise only when publication is
made and there is no law under which the publication of defamatory
material can be prevented [See : Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh :
(1975) 2 SCC 148]. The blanket order of injunction in such a situation
prohibiting the press or media from publishing any kind of defamatory
or libellous material would virtually amount to a gag order or
censorship of the press.
16.
In the present case, as per the averments made in the plaint
itself, the plaintiff and his family members constitute a joint Hindu
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
21
ao37.14.odt
family consisting of at least some of the members occupying public
offices. The defendants accept the position that the plaintiff and his
family members occupy the public offices or figures and are the public
officials. The plaintiff claims that all the members of his family are
leading a social and public life. Though there is a dispute raised in
respect of certain articles, news items and photographs regarding their
nature being defamatory or libellous, some of the allegations or
ig
aspersions, no doubt, are defamatory and libellous in character. The
defendants have produced on record the material indicating that
various criminal cases are pending against the plaintiff and his family
members, including those under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. The
Trial Court has recorded the finding that the judgments in number of
money lending cases against Dilipkumar Gokulchand Sananda are
produced. One of such judgments being the decision of the Apex
Court in SLP (Cri.) No.2614 of 2009 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. v.
Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr), in which it is claimed
that very scathing observations are made by this Court against the
plaintiff and his family members. The portion from the concurring
judgment delivered by His Lordship G.S. Singhvi in para 9, which is
reproduced below :
::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2015 17:59:29 :::
22
ao37.14.odt
ig
“9. The facts of this case, as noticed in the judgment
prepared by brother Justice Ganguly, show that with a view to
frustrate the complaint made by respondent No.1 who alleged
that respondent No.2Gokulchand Sananda, his family
members and some other money lenders were harassing him
and other farmers and also to stall the action likely to be
initiated by the concerned police authorities under the Bombay
Money Lenders Act, 1946. Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a
member of the Legislative Assembly approached the Chief
Minister for a special treatment. In the first place, the
Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister made enquiries from
the police station about the cases registered against Sananda.
Thereafter, the Chief Minister, without verifying the
truthfulness or otherwise of the assertion of Shri Dilip Kumar
Sananda that false complaints were being lodged against his
family members, issued instructions that complaint against the
concerned M.L.A. and his family members should be first placed
before the District AntiMoney Lending Committee, which
should obtain legal opinion of the District Government Pleader
and then only take decision on the same and take appropriate
legal action. The camouflage of sophistry used by Shri Vilas
Rao Deshmukh in the instructions given by him and the
affidavit filed before this Court is clearly misleading. The
message to the authorities was loud and clear i.e. they were not
to take the complaints against Sananda family seriously and
not to proceed against them. The District Magistrate, the
District Superintendent of Police and officers subordinate to
them were bound to comply with the same in their letter and
spirit. They could disregard those instructions at their own
peril and none of them was expected to do so. The District
AntiMoney Lending Committee was constituted by the
Government of Maharashtra vide resolution No.MLA.
1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19th October, 2009 for protecting
the farmers against unscrupulous money lenders and not for
protecting the wrong doers, but in total disregard of the scheme
of the Act, the Minister gave instructions which had the effect of
frustrating the object of the legislation enacted for protection of
the farmers. The instructions given by the Chief Minister to
District Collector, Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the
provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the
Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the provisions of
the Act and amounted to an unwanted interference with the
functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of
enforcing the Act enacted for regulating, controlling
transactions of money lending and protecting unsuspecting
borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of
unscrupulous money lenders.”
In the written statement, a reference is made to the public
17.
notice issued by the Reserve Bank of India in several newspapers in
respect of the restrictions put on the Janata Commercial Bank Ltd.,
Khamgaon, with which the close connection and control of the
plaintiff and his family members is sought to be established. The
attempt on the part of the defendants to establish the defamatory
allegations prima facie seems to be in good faith and for public good
and interest by producing the material on record. The Trial Court has
committed an error in holding that the provision of law is that the
defamatory articles are presumed to be false unless contrary is proved.
It has also committed an error in prejudging the issue by holding that
the items published have no concern with the public interest or for
public good. The allegations or aspersions made in the articles
prima facie seem to be interlinked. The grant of blanket order of
injunction cannot, therefore, be countenanced and it will have to be
set aside. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff, has relied upon several decisions referred to by the Trial
Court in the impugned order. However, I do not find it necessary to
refer to those judgments at this stage.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order
18.
dated 1532014 passed below Exhibit 5 by the Trial Court in Regular
Civil Suit No.17 of 2013, is hereby quashed and set aside. The
application at Exhibit 5 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment