NIRMALJIT SINGH NARULA Vs. STAR INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr Nirmaljit Singh Narula, plaintiff herein, filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for Rs.50 crores for defamation against seven defendants, including, defendant No.1 Star India Pvt. Ltd., Mr Uday Shanker, CEO of defendant No.1, Mr Shrivardhan Trivedi and Ms Sumaira Khan, both Anchors of defendant No.1. When the suit and interim application were listed first time on 24.04.2012, summons and notice were issued to the defendants for 27.04.2012.

(2.) On 27.04.2012, Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, who informed the Court orally that it is the Media Contents and Communication Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who was telecasting the news on the Star News Channel. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were not necessary parties to the suit. He was granted time to file the affidavit in this regard and the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2012 for taking necessary steps by the plaintiff.

(3.) On 01.05.2012, the plaintiff's two applications, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, were allowed and defendants No.8 and 9 were impleaded. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the amended memo of parties and plaint. Dasti summons and notice were issued to the said parties for 07.05.2012. On 07.05.2012, when the matter was listed, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, was pressing for interim protection immediately on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. On the other hand, Mr Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.8 and 9, sought time to file the written-statement and reply to the interim application. As Mr Lekhi was insisting for interim protection due to the nature of urgent matter, defendants No.8 and 9 were given two days' time to file short affidavit to put their stand about the allegation made in the plaint before filing written statement and reply. Prayer for interim protection was strongly opposed by Mr Agnani. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 was pressing for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The said request was opposed by Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff. Service report for other defendants is still awaited.