BANSI LAL AGARWAL Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 4860-61/2004 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. IA stands disposed of. IA 4859/2004

(2.) This is an application seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining all the defendants from publishing or distributing any notice, caution notices or any other publication in any newspaper as per annexures P-1 collectively or in the same/similar nature thereto. This IA is filed in the present suit which is for permanent injunction and damages. The suit is primarily founded on the defamatory statements alleged to have been made by the defendant by such publications in respect of which the injunction has been sought. The facts of the case are that Shakti Bhog Label is a product of the plaintiff in respect of which a Suit No. 8/2002 is pending before the learned Additional District Judge filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff who is the present defendant) avers in that suit that he is a since 1975 a manufacturer of food products by the well known name of Shakti Bhog and the adoption of trademark Shakti Bhog Label in relation to Pure Ghee by the plaintiff herein was objected to. The grievance in the present suit arises on account of certain publications resorted to the defendant. He states that there was a news item of about spurious Desi Ghee published on 18th June, 2004 which was in fact Palm Oil. The news item mentioned inter alia the name of Shakti Bhog in relation to such products. Consequently a caution notice was issued by the defendant on 23rd June, 2004 which read as follows. CAUTION NOTICE SHAKTI BHOG

(3.) The further publication of such notices is sought to be injuncted by the present suit and this interim relief application by. the plaintiff Manorama Foods. In the present application Mr. Bansal has relied upon the notice found objectionable by the plaintiff to contend that the plaintiffs reputation has been harmed by the publication of such caution notices, and while it is open to the defendant to issue a caution notice for clearing its own name but since reference has been to the plaintiffs name such publication seeks to bring down the plaintiffs reputation and accordingly even though the notice may have been published earlier no further publication of the said notice are warranted. In reply to the pleas of the plaintiff the learned counsel for the defendant Mr. Nayyar submitted the position of law on pre-publication of defamatory reference where truth have been raised as defence laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in AIR 2002 Delhi 58 Khush want Singh v. Maneka Gandhi. In particular he has relied upon para 69 & 70 of the said judgment which read as follows: .