SEAGRAM INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. VIPIN SOHANLAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff (hereafter "Seagram"), a private limited company seeks a decree for permanent injunction and damages. Seagram was set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Seagram Company Ltd. Canada; its name was changed to Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. and a fresh certificate of incorporation dated 23.04.2007 was issued by the Registrar of Companies. Seagram manufactures and markets alcoholic beverages in India under diverse trademarks, inter alia, Blenders Pride, 100 Pipers, Something Special, Royal Stag etc.

(2.) The Defendant and his family members owned the entire share holding in a company that they had set up by the name of Oceanic Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (ODPL). In February/March 1997, the Defendant and his family members transferred their entire shareholding in ODPL in favour of the Plaintiff and its nominee and thereafter gradually resigned and ceased to be the Directors of ODPL. The suit alleges that such transfer of share ownership by the Defendant and his family members was duly approved by the Board of Directors entirely consisting of the Defendant, his brother and his mother. It is stated that ODPL's name was changed to Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (SDPL) by the Registrar of Companies. The suit states that three years after the share transfer, the Defendant and his family members filed a suit in the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction to restrain the Plaintiff from acting as shareholder of ODPL. The application for exparte, and later, temporary injunction was denied.

(3.) Seagram submits that after the lack of success in securing temporary injunction, the Defendant started a malicious vilification campaign to defame it, by addressing letters to various persons, officials, departments and authorities of the Central Government and Government of Maharashtra, besides others by making false, defamatory, disparaging, derogatory and scandalous allegations and imputations against the Plaintiff alleging fraud, dishonesty, forgery, cheating, misrepresentation, violation of law and fraudulent takeover of ODPL. The Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 29.12.2004 upon the Defendant calling him to refrain from making defamatory allegations. In its reply dated 15.01.2005, the Defendant's Advocate admitted and confirmed having made and published various imputations and allegations against the Plaintiff and insisted on continuing to make the same.