IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI Tr.C.S.No.1038 of 2005 Sri N.S.Veerabhadraiah .... Plaintiff Vs. 1. Sri Aroon Purie Major Editor in Chief India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 2. Sri Prabhu Chawla Major Editor, Printer & Publisher India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 3. Sri Swapan Dasgupta Major Managing Editor India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 4. Sri Stephen David Major Correspondent (Bangalore) India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 5. Mohini Bhullar Major Publishing Director India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 6. Sri Ramesh Vinasyak Major Correspondent India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 7. Sri Rohit Parihar Major Correspondent, India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 8. Sumit Mitra Major Correspondent India Today Living Media India Limited F-14/15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 9. Living Media India Limited F-14-15, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001. .... Defendants Prayer: Suit filed under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a decree against the Defendants for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest. For Plaintiff : Mr.C.Rajan and Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy For Defendants: Mr.Sundar Mohan JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed the suit for damages directing the Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest for the defamatory publication made by the Defendants.
2. The Plaintiff was directly recruited as District and Sessions Judge in the year 1983 and elevated as Judge of the High Court in the month of June 1998. Initially he was appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Karnataka and later he was made permanent. Defendants are India Today Magazine and its Major Editor in Chief, Printer & Publisher, Major Managing Editor, Major Correspondent (Bangalore), Major Publishing Director, Major Correspondents and owner and proprietor. There were certain publication of news items in Defendant’s Magazine for the week January 14-20, 2003 made by the Defendants in their Magazine alleging immoral activities in a resort of Mysore city and further alleging that the three judges of Karnataka High Court were involved in the alleged incident and that the transfer of the Judges involved in the alleged incident were being contemplated. Alleging that because of the publication of the defamatory materials, the Plaintiff has suffered acute mental agony and pain and unbearable ignominy and humiliation and that there is a loss of reputation to the family, the Plaintiff has filed the suit for damages claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the Defendants.
3. By the order of the Supreme Court, the suit was transferred to this Court.
4. Resisting the suit, the Defendants have filed written statement inter alia raising various defence.
5. In the suit, following issues were framed:
“1. Whether the alleged publication in the newspaper “India Today” are defamatory, having tendency to injure the Plaintiff’s reputation as Judge of the High Court and in his individual capacity?
2. Whether the reports in the news paper “India Today” has harmed the reputation of the Plaintiff, lowering his moral and intellectual character in the eyes of the public, as alleged by the Plaintiff?
3. Whether the plea adopted by the Defendants that the newspaper reports complained are in substance bonafide reporting based on credible information?
4. Whether the alleged report made in the newspaper “India Today” was in good faith and in public interest ?
5. Whether the news reported in the newspaper “India Today” on various dates are justified in commenting on the conduct of the Judges, reducing the scope of public office for pursuing the action for damages in defamation ?
6. Whether the suit is maintainable in the light of suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court, Karnataka and observations made by the Supreme Court in C.A.No.433 of 2003 ?
7. Whether the news items, statements and reports, alleged to be defamatory, were reported by other news papers since 5.11.2002 ?
8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs.6,00,000/-, as claimed in the suit?”
6. When the suit was pending trial, Plaintiff died on 12.12.2008. By order dated 23.4.2010, the application filed by the legal representatives of Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the suit is founded on torts which is purely a personal right of the plaintiff and as per Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, cause of action does not survive and the suit will stand abated.
7. In the result, the suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.
23.04.2010
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
usk
R.BANUMATHI,J.
usk JUDGMENT IN TR.C.S.NO.1038 OF 2005 23.04.2010
