A. VIKRAM SUTHAKAR Vs. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the sole defendant in C.S. No: 287 of 2018 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. The suit in C.S. No: 287 of 2018 was filed by the respondent herein seeking damages for defamation and for injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner writing and/or publishing any letters either in print and/or in electronic form to any authority and/or persons which are per se false and/or defamatory against the plaintiff or its directors or employees. The said suit came to be filed contending that the defendant's father was a dealer of the goods manufactured by the plaintiff apart from being a shareholder of the plaintiff company. During the year 2012 the plaintiff company implemented a delisting process as per the regulations of the Securities Exchange Board of India. At the time of the said delisting the shares held by the defendant's father were purchased by the holding company of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 9 crores. The said amount was transferred to the account of the defendant's father by way of RTGS on 25/4/2015. However during the year 2017 the sales tax department raised certain demands against the defendant's father which prompted him to make certain complaints to the authorities against the plaintiff on issuance of certain statutory forms which were to be furnished as per the provisions of the taxing statutes. After the death of the defendant's father the defendant has been writing various letters making scurrilous and disparaging remarks against the plaintiff and its directors to statutory authorities as well as the family members of the family of the promoters of the plaintiff. The defendant apart from addressing those letters to the address of the company has chosen to send them to various institutions in which the family members of the promoter of the plaintiff had some role to play. This action of the defendant, according to the plaintiff had resulted in loss of reputation as well as loss of business to the plaintiff. Therefore according to the plaintiff the defendant is liable to make good the damage that is caused due to his vituperative campaign against the plaintiff. The said suit is pending.

(2.) It is at this juncture the defendant has come forward with the above application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action. According to the defendant, whatever has been stated in the complaints and letters written by the defendant addressed to the statutory authorities and the family members of the promoters of the plaintiff is true to the knowledge of the Applicant, therefore there is no question of those letters amounting to defamation. Even assuming that the contents of the letters is not true, there being no publication of the defamatory material as alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit particularly seeking damages for defamation and for permanent injunction. The defendant would further contend that all that he had done his only to bring to the notice of the promoters' family members about certain actions of the plaintiff company which are against the provisions of the Companies Act and the SEBI regulations. These actions according to the defendant cannot, at any stretch of imagination; be termed as defamatory entailing the plaintiff to sue for damages. Referring to the requirements of a civil defamation or slander the defendant would contend that even if one of the conditions required is absent the statement attributed to the defendant cannot be said to be defamatory. On the above contentions the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint.

(3.) A counter has been filed by the respondent contending that a plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the defence set up by the defendant to the suit. The court will have to look only at the plaint allegations and on a close reading of the plaint, if a case has been made out, the plaint cannot be rejected for want of course of action. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that whether the contents of the letters are false or whether the letters contained any defamatory material or whether there was publication of such defamatory material are all questions which have to be gone into the suit based on the evidence to be let in and those questions cannot be decided at the threshold in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the defendant had intentionally forwarded copies of the letters written by him to the family members of the promoters and to various organisations with which they were connected only to enable publication of his defamatory statements. The sending of the letters to various addresses establishes that the intention of the defendant was to malign and defame the plaintiff as well as the family members of the promoters of the plaintiff and therefore there is enough and more cause of action that is available to the plaintiff to sue for damages.