2001 (8) TMI 1423 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against the defendant?
3. Whether the report published in the journal is defamatory or made in good faith or for espousing public cause in due diligence without mala fide?
4. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Damages:
The plaintiff claimed damages of Rs. 15 lakhs for defamation due to an article published by the defendants. The plaintiff argued that the publication was defamatory and caused significant harm to its reputation and goodwill. The defendants contended that the publication was made in good faith, based on information gathered from credible sources, and was intended to serve the public interest by highlighting potential environmental hazards.

2. Entitlement to Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from making any further defamatory allegations and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to publish a retraction. The defendants argued that granting such an injunction would interfere with the freedom of the press, which is protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression.

3. Defamatory Nature of the Report:
The plaintiff argued that the publication was "per se" defamatory, as it portrayed the company as a major pollution hazard, causing fear among the local population. The defendants argued that the publication was a fair comment made in good faith, based on verified information, and aimed at protecting public health and safety. The court examined whether the publication was made with malice or negligence and whether it was a fair comment on a matter of public interest.

4. Relief Entitlement:
The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief based on the findings regarding the defamatory nature of the publication and the entitlement to damages or injunction.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the publication was not defamatory and was made in good faith, in the interest of public safety. The court emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and the press's role in highlighting public issues, even if it involves some level of exaggeration. The publication was found to fall within the ambit of qualified privilege, as it met the necessary criteria, including the nature of information, steps taken to verify it, and the inclusion of the plaintiff's version.

Judgment:
The suit was dismissed, and the publication was deemed not to have been made with the intention to defame the plaintiff. The court held that the publication was in good faith and aimed at protecting public interest, thus not warranting damages or an injunction. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.