SUN TV LTD Vs. DINAMALAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are the plaintiffs, who preferred the suit, C. S. No. 666/07 for direction on defendants (appellants herein) to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs as damages for the defamation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner publishing/telecasting or broadcasting the news depicting Mr. Ramesh as "dinamalar Ramesh" or "owner of Dinamalar" either by way of picture, sound or scroll methods in their TV channel, namely, Sun TV, Sun Group TV Network, etc.

(2.) IN an application for grant of ad-interim injunction, in the manner as sought for in the suit, learned Judge, by impugned order, made following observation and passed ad-interim injunction :-"21. . . . . . I do not find that at this stage, it is advisable to get into the merits and demerits of the claims of the parties. The plaintiff has no objection in the publication of any news items except in cases where the narration is of such a nature to cause damage to the image of the plaintiff. I do not find any illegality or irrationality in such a plea. Considering the same, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction which is restricted only to the extent of descriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of the partner of the plaintiff firm or prefixing the name of the plaintiff's newspaper to the name of Ramesh. "

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ramesh is the son of Dr. R. Krishnamurthy, who is one of the partners of the 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar. The said 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, has already preferred an earlier suit, C. S. No. 626/07 for same cause of action and prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 of the suit, who are also defendants in the subsequent suit (C. S. No. 666/07), their men, agents, servants, representatives, etc. , from and in any way interfering with the business of the plaintiff, Dinamalar, either by making any publication or any telecast in Sun TV, Sun News, Dinakaran or in Tamil Murasu against the plaintiffs, its internal affairs, its partners, employees under the guise of publishing or telecasting calling it as news item, thereby attempting to ruin the business of the plaintiff. In the said suit, though interim injunction was sought for with similar prayer as made in the present case, no interim order of injunction has been passed and mere notice has been issued on the defendants. Subsequent suit, i. e. , the present one, C. S. No. 666/07 has been preferred by the same 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, through another partner and claimed for damages and similar permanent order of injunction, suppressing the fact relating to filing of the earlier suit in which notice has been issued. Learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, assailed the institution of the second suit, apart from interim order of injunction as issued in the said suit, on the following grounds :-a) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, being common to both the suit, consequently, non-disclosure of earlier suit in the present suit amounts to suppresio veri / suggestio falsi and, therefore, relief of interim injunction should not have been granted in the subsequent suit; b) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, having sued the defendant for bare permanent injunction, having disclosed in the first suit that they have suffered damages, are barred from filing the second suit without taking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and c) The defendants (appellants herein) are part of the Press and Electronic Media, publication of any news item cannot be restrained by passing interim order of injunction pursuant to an interlocutory application in a defamatory suit. He placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in R. Rajagopal @ R. R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and Anr.- Vs J. Jayalalitha and Anr. reported in 2006 (2) LW 377. That case arose out of a suit for defamation and the appeal was preferred against order granting injunction. In the said case, Division Bench observed that though the expression "freedom of press is not used in Article 19, it is included as one of the guarantees under Article 19 (1) (a); right to publish and freedom of press is enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) are sacrosanct and only parameters of restrictions are provided under Article 19 (2); freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance in a democratic constitution, which envisages changes in the composition of Legislatures and Governments, and must be preserved". In the said case, it was held that the order of single Judge amounted to a gag order or censorship of press.