SIDDHARTHA MITRA Vs. PRATIDIN PRAKASHANI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for defamation.

(2.) The plaint case in nutshell is that the Plaintiff is an advocate practicing in Calcutta High Court since 1983. He has obtained his honours degree in law from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences (University of London) in the year 1981 and was thereafter called to the Bar from the Lincoln's Inn in United Kingdom. Subsequently, the Plaintiff became a member of Bar Library Club, Calcutta High Court and also became a member of High Court Club, Calcutta. The Plaintiff is also a member of several clubs in Kolkata and has a wide circle of friends and relatives. He is highly respected in his society.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 is a Bengali Daily. Defendant No. 2 is the editor, printer and publisher of the Defendant No.1. It is averred in the plaint that the Defendant No. 1 published a news item on 1 st September, 2007 bearing a heading and purported to convey that the Plaintiff subjected his father to cruel treatment and tortures. The Plaintiff is not regular reader of the Bengali Daily "Sangbad Pratidin" but came to know about the publication from his friends and associates. The Plaintiff caused a letter dtd. 5/9/2007 to be issued by his advocate to the Defendant No. 1 and 2 setting out the true and correct facts. In spite of issuance of said letter the Defendant caused another news item to be published in the Bengali Daily "Sangbad Pratidin" on 5/9/2007 bearing and heading purporting to say that the old father was tortured which was being investigated by the police. According to Plaintiff the news articles published in the "Sangbad Pratidin" on 1/9/2007 and 5/9/2007 were false and were contained in malicious/false suit calculated to vilify the Plaintiff and his wife and lower the esteem of the Plaintiff as well as his wife in his society. It is averred in the plaint that the news item conveys the impression to the readership that the Plaintiff is an ungrateful son who is avaricious, motivated by greed for which he subjected his aged father to untold misery, suffering, mental grief and agony. But for such publication, the Plaintiff has suffered considerable distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation as well as serious injury to his character, credit and reputation; the Plaintiff is exposed to public scandal and contempt. The Plaintiff's letter to the Defendant No. 1 was replied by the Defendant without ameliorating the predicament. Therefore, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the instant suit praying for decree of Rs.10.00 Crores as damages; alternatively, enquiry to ascertain the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and decree for such damages; injunction restraining the Defendants and their agents from publishing, printing or circulating any words defamatory to the Plaintiff along with other prayers.