GANESH GRAINS LTD. Vs. ANUSHREE BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an action in defamation. The plaintiff claims to be a well-known manufacturer and exporter of, inter alia, atta, maida and all the wheat products. The business was started in the year 1950 by one Purshottam Das Mimani under the name and style of "Ganesh Flour Mills" as sole proprietor thereof. The said Purshottam Das Mimani coined, adopted and started using the mark "Ganesh" in respect of atta, suji and other allied products since 1950. Over a period of time the business expanded and the mark "Ganesh" has acquired goodwill in the market. In view of such success the proprietorship concern was converted into "Ganesh Wheat Products Pvt. Ltd." on 19th March, 2000 and thereafter changed to "Ganesh Grains Pvt. Ltd." on 4th January, 2011 thereupon a further change to "Ganesh Grains Limited" on 28th January, 2011. The petitioner claims that quality control of the petitioner began at the raw material procurement stage and it continues through the extensive cleaning process and most advance grinding process and to the final packaging stage making the company's policies and epitome of total quality management. The petitioner has referred to various awards and certificates as well as achievements.

(2.) The present action is based on a post on the facebook by the defendant no.2 on 19th June, 2018 in which the defendant no.2 has stated that they found piece of bones in a 5 Kg. packet manufactured by Ganesh from M/s. Jairam Bhandar, Konnagar. This post has triggered of news items published in the defendant nos.3 and 5. The defendant no.5, however, subsequently stated that the news items were unverified. The news items, as such, do not show that the defendants have informed the press about impurity.

(3.) In a country where least attention is given to the quality standard of food grains and there are marketers operating who have no scruples for quality and the consumer are always at a vulnerable position, at this stage, it is difficult to arrive at a finding as to whether the defendant no.2 has intentionally caused any such posting on the facebook. Ordinarily a customer would not complain of the quality of the products unless the customer is faced with such a situation. At this stage, it is difficult for this Court to arrive at a finding that the said defendant nos.1 and 2 or any of them would have any malice against the plaintiff. The goods have been confiscated by the police and investigation is pending. In such circumstances, it is premature to come to a finding that there has been any malice on the part of the defendant nos.1 and 2. However, having regard to the fact that the purpose of the posting is fulfilled that is to say that public became aware that the products of the plaintiff could be sold by unscrupulous traders by adulterating the original products which could be a possibility unless the result of the investigation are known to the parties, in my view the defendant no.2 should remove the post from the facebook. Accordingly, the defendant no.2 shall remove the post from facebook within 48 hours from date. However, the observation made in this order shall not influence the investigation and/or any future proceedings that may arise upon the investigation being concluded. The defendant nos.3 and 5 have not published any fresh news on the basis of the news items published earlier.