CADBURY INDIA LIMITED Vs. M C SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming damages of Rs.2 crores for defamation against defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be the Director of defendant No.2, the latter claiming to be a research laboratory. Perpetual injunction is sought to restrain the defendants from further writing or publishing or re-publishing, articles, news items containing allegations or defamatory statements similar to those set out in para 5 to 15 of the plaint relating primarily to the Nickel content or use of Nickel in the chocolates manufactured by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff has averred that the defamatory imputations attributed to defendants were published in a series of articles and write-ups which have been produced alongwith the plaint as exhibits B to H. This suit was transferred from the High Court of Bombay to this Court vide orders of the Supreme Court persuant to the orders passed on 24.11.1995. The Defendant entered appearance on 1.5.1996 and sought time to file the written statement. Written statement was not filed. Defendants were accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 12.5.1998 Defendants thereupon, moved an application, I.A.No.5001/99 under Order 9 Rule 7 for setting aside the ex-parte order. The application was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,500.00 to the Delhi Legal Services Authority. Time was further granted file Written Statement within four weeks from 110.9.99. Instead of filing the written statement, the defendants moved an application, I.A.No.10657/99 seeking further information and better particulars.

(3.) The said application was dismissed by this Court on 11.11.1999 with costs of Rs.3000.00 . Despite repeated opportunities granted to file the written statement, it has not been filed. Neither have the costs imposed for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings or imposed while dismissing the application under Order 11 Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code been paid.