DINAMALAR Vs. SUN T V LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the business of the applicant and its internal affairs by making any publication or by telecasting in SUN TV, SUN News, Dinakaran or Tamil Murasu against the applicant.

(2.) THE applicant Dinamalar, a registered partnership firm contends that the third respondent, in his newspaper Dinakaran, has started publishing news items, articles regarding the applicant's firm, its partners and sons of some of the partners in order to cause wrongful loss to the applicants and to create an adverse opinion about the newspaper Dinamalar. They are telecasting in their channels and publishing in their newspapers false, mischievous and frivolous news items about the applicant's newspaper causing injury to the business of the applicant. The said news items are not fair comments and for public good. The third respondent, through his publication, misused the false allegations made by an ex-employee of the applicant by name Uma and painted a wrong picture about the applicant among the public and readers. The applicant issued a statement to the first respondent to telecast a statement refuting the allegations of the above employee Uma, but, the respondents did not telecast the version of the applicant. If the respondents are not injuncted from causing injury to the applicant, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and untoward hardship. In the supplementary affidavit, the applicant has contended that a news item was published in the Computer Malar of Dina Malar of Vellore edition about a website You Tube. co. in and the web frame of the portal You Tube was also published. On publication of the abovesaid article, the local people at Vellore belonging to Muslim community protested on the ground that the said photograph depicts a Muslim in a bad taste. The Editor of Vellore Edition published an apology stating that the said photograph has been published inadvertently and that the applicant has no intention to hurt the religious sentiments of Muslim community. A group of Muslims gathered in front of the office of the applicant on 2. 9. 2008 and damaged the office. The third respondent, in order to instigate the Muslim community against the applicant herein, has blown the abovesaid incident out of proportion wantonly with an intention to cause damage to the business of the applicant.

(3.) IN the counter, the respondents have submitted that there can be no restriction on reporting by newspapers as it would amount to infringement of right of expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No restriction could be made to interfere with the freedom of press unless any law specifically empowers the State to impose any restriction in the interest of public. A news item about the former employee of the applicant, who lodged a complaint against one Ramesh, who is the son of a partner of the applicant, was published. Publication of a news item cannot be taken exception just because it relates to the family of the applicant herein. The respondents cannot be imputed with malice for publication of facts which form part of various legal proceedings. It is premature to come to a conclusion about the truthfulness about the allegations made by the applicant. The general public will be deprived of their access to the information about the current affairs and about the progress of the case against the son of one of the partners of the applicant. The respondents never instigated the Muslim community against the applicant. They never twisted any facts as alleged by the applicant. The publication and telecasting made by them are about the actual instance that have taken place and the same cannot be said to be causing aspersion on the applicant. Therefore, the respondents pray for dismissal of the application seeking interim injunction.