टीओआई के खिलाफ मित्तल की मूल याचिका ये है

Mr. Sudhanshu Mittal (Plaintiff) VERSUS M/s Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Defendants) : Plaintiff Through : U.C. GUPTA, Advocate New Delhi : IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE DISTRICT – CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI – 110054

MEMO OF PARTIES

Shri Sudhanshu Mittal
S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Mittal
R/o G-7, Dhawandeep Building
6, Jantar Mantar Road
New Delhi-110001

Also at:

R-29, Vikas Marg
Shakkarpur
Delhi

Plaintiff

Versus

1. M/s Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd.
(Owners & Managers of ‘The Times Group’ including Times of India publications)

2. Shri Vineet Jain, Chairman

3. Shri Dinesh Wadhawan, MD & CEO, Times of India

4. Shri A.P. Parigi, Director, Times of India

5. Shri Sumir Chadha, Director, Times of India

6. Shri Jaideep Bose, Editor-in-Chief, Times of India

7. Shri Rajesh Kalra, Chief Editor, Times of India

8. Shri Vikas Singh, Editor (Delhi Market) Times of India
(Responsible for selection of news under PRB Act)

Defendants 1 to 8 are available at : 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002

SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

Most respectfully showeth :

1. That the plaintiff herein is a law abiding and peace loving citizen of the country and having great repute in the society. The plaintiff is a senior leader of BJP; the main opposition party in India for many years. Presently the plaintiff is a member of National Council of BJP and is working very closely with senior BJP leaders.

2. That the defendant no. 1, M/s Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. is a limited company duly registered under The Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 M/s Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. is the controlling company and owner of The Times Group, which is one of India’s leading media groups having Times of India and various other newspapers & magazines, internet portals, TV broadcasting, etc. under its umbrella. The defendant no. 2 is the Chairman of the Times Group. The defendant nos. 3 to 5 are the MD & CEO/Directors of Times of India. The defendant no. 6 is the Editor-in-Chief and the defendant no. 7 is the Chief Editor of Times of India. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 in their capacity as Chairman/MD & CEO/Directors and the defendant nos. 6 & 7 as Editor-in-Chief/Chief Editor of Times of India are responsible for supervision, control and management of the day-to-day activities & affairs and publication of news articles in Times of India including its internet portal. The defendant no. 8 in his capacity as Editor (Delhi Market) of Times of India is responsible for selection of news under PRB Act.

3. That the plaintiff is a senior leader of BJP and presently is a member of National Council of BJP and is working very closely with senior BJP leaders. The Plaintiff has held very senior and strategic positions in Delhi University student’s activities ever since his joining the prestigious Shri Ram College of Commerce in 1979. The plaintiff formed and led Students Action Committee in Delhi University and was elected President of Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) in the year 1981 as a candidate of Janta Vidyarathi Morcha, the student wing of BJP.

4. That it is stated that the plaintiff was appointed to the State executive of BJP in 1981 and National Council of BJP in 1983 and held various senior level positions in BJP since then. He was the Joint Election In charge for 7 N-E States of India for Lok Sabha elections held in 2009. The plaintiff was also the elected member of Finance Committee of Delhi University and Delhi University Court and has been the elected member of Delhi University Executive Committee, the highest decision making body for two consecutive terms for 5 years.

5. That besides his political activities, the plaintiff is also involved and associated with various educational, social and philanthropic activities/organizations. Apart from his political and social activities the plaintiff is also an entrepreneur/business man and is engaged in the business of tent house & decorators.

6. That it is obvious from the above that the plaintiff is a man of high social standing and repute and he commands immense respect and reputation in the society at State, National and International level.

7. That the defendant nos. 1 to 8 in collusion, connivance and conspiracy with each and other and others with an intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the plaintiff and damage his social & political standing and goodwill in the society, published a news article on internet portal of ‘Times of India’ on October 19, 2010 at 01.21 p.m. at the instance and instigation of the adversaries of the plaintiff and to defame the plaintiff thereby making totally malicious, false, incorrect and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff. The details and relevant extracts of the contents of said article are reproduced hereunder: –

Article Dated 19.10.2010 at 01.21 p.m.

Titled as: “CWG scam: CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house”

Extracts of the contents of the article:

• 1st para: “The Income Tax Department today conducted searches at the premises of businessman and BJP activist Sudhanshu Mittal and some other contractors as part of probe to unearth alleged tax evasion in works related to the Commonwealth Games.”

• 2nd para: “More than 200 sleuths of the I-T department swooped down on the premises of Mittal and his relatives as the department has found a number of contracts to the tune of more than Rs. 200 crore being bagged by them, sources said.”

Copy of the said news article, the printout, whereof has been taken from the ‘internet portal of Times of India’ dated 19.10.2010 downloaded from internet is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2.

8. That the defendants in the suit also in active collusion and connivance with each other and others with ulterior and malafide motives in order to defame the plaintiff, published the above said articles at the behest and under patronage of the adversaries of the plaintiff deliberately, knowing fully well that it will harm and disrepute the plaintiff by stating / printing / highlighting the following: –

• CWG scam: CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house as title of the news article

• conducted searches at the premises of businessman and BJP activist Sudhanshu Mittal

• sleuths of the I-T department swooped down on the premises of Mittal and his relatives

9. That a perusal of the complete contents of news article clearly reveals that the alleged raid was conducted by I-T officials to unearth the alleged tax evasion and CBI was no where in picture even going by the details of the news article as published by the news paper on its internet portal. But the aforesaid article, which has been published with the sole objective of tarnishing the image and reputation of the Plaintiff and to defame him in the eyes of the masses i.e. the public at large has been titled as ‘CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house’ with malicious and malafide intentions.

10. The information/news that I-T department conducted the alleged raids would mean, imply and convey to any one reading the news article that there might be certain defaults/violations under the provisions of I-T laws but the title CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal connotes altogether a different meaning to any one, who has not read the complete article. The title CBI raids has been given with malafide intentions to project the Plaintiff as hard criminal, which is far from truth, even if contents of the news article published by the accused persons are presumed to be true.

11. That many people read/see only the headings/titles and draw their own conclusions without reading the complete article.

12. That the plaintiff categorically submits that CBI has never raided the premises of the plaintiff and thus the heading/title of the news article: ‘CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house’ is factually incorrect and false statement published by the accused persons to defame the Plaintiff.

13. It is further submitted that the article itself states that the alleged raids by I-T department have been conducted at the premises of various contractors in connection with the alleged tax evasion but the name of the plaintiff has deliberately been highlighted in the news article with malicious and malafide intentions with the sole objective of tarnishing the image and reputation of the plaintiff and to defame him in the eyes of the masses i.e. the public at large.

14. That above said imputations against the plaintiff have been published with complete knowledge of the above-mentioned defendants. The defendants by publication of the above news article have caused great humiliation & denigration to the plaintiff and his esteem has been lowered in the eyes of his relatives, friends, colleagues and associates apart from causing a big jolt to his respect, repute and fame. The said imputations against the plaintiff have been published in the most callous and negligent manner thereby causing irreparable harm, damage and injury to the reputation of the plaintiff.

15. That the plaintiff only owns ‘Delhi Tents & Decorators’, who was awarded contracts worth Rs. 29 lacs only from CWG on its own merits, which contract was duly executed by ‘Delhi Tents & Decorators’ to the entire satisfaction of CWG authorities.

16. That the imputations qua the plaintiff in the news articles published by the defendants in the aforesaid internet portal of Times of India are totally false and without any basis. It is submitted that upon reading the aforesaid article, the associates/friends/relatives of the plaintiff namely, Shri Anil Batra, s/o Late Shri Vir Bhan Batra, r/o 101, Tower Appartments, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi – 110092 and Shri Saurabh Aggarwal, son of Late Shri Kishan Aggarwal, r/o B – 103, Mahalaxmi Appartments, Sector – 2, Plot – 4, Dwarka, New Delhi and various other persons after seeing the said news article on internet portal of Times of India made remarks against the dignity and respect of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff at his office at Dhawandeep Building,: “After watching/seeing the news article titled as ‘CBI raids BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal’s house’ on internet portal of Times of India, we have lost our faith & confidence in you, since CBI is following you, which gives an impression that you are involved in criminal activities. We are afraid CBI may also follow us for our contacts with you, therefore we would not like to keep any further contact with you hereafter as your status and reputation has got lowered in our eyes ” and the said article published by the defendants made a bad impact on many relatives, friends, colleagues and other associates of the plaintiff. Further, subsequent to publication of the above news article, the plaintiff is continuously receiving calls from many of his relatives, colleagues, friends, etc. under the impression that the plaintiff is involved in criminal activities. The said imputations qua the plaintiff published in the internet portal of Times of India contained very serious and utterly false allegations against the plaintiff and have been published at the behest of the adversaries of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is facing humiliation & embarrassment and his goodwill & reputation has been lowered down in his social/political circle.

17. That internet portal of Times of India, in which the aforesaid news article has been published, is one of the widely watched internet news portal, is read and seen by the masses i.e. public at large and it is the responsibility of the defendant no. 1, M/s Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd., the controlling company and owner of The Times Group to ascertain and verify the contents & facts and make impeccable and proper enquiries before publishing any article. The defendant no. 2 is the Chairman of the Times Group. The defendant nos. 3 to 5 are the MD & CEO/Directors of Times of India. Defendant no. 6 is the Editor-in Chief & defendant no. 7 is the Chief Editor of Times of India. the defendant nos. 2 to 5 in their capacity as Chairman/MD & CEO/Directors of Times of India are responsible for supervision, control and management of the day-to-day activities & affairs of Times of India. All news articles in Times of India including its internet portal are published under direct supervision & control of defendant nos. 6 & 7. The defendant no. 8 in his capacity as Editor (Delhi Market) of Times of India is responsible for selection of news under The Press And Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB Act).

18. That defendant nos. 1 to 8 in collusion; conspiracy and connivance with the adversaries of the plaintiff have published false statements in the news article knowingly with the intention to defame the plaintiff. The defendants any verification, knowingly and intentionally have made false, malicious and defamatory statements in the said news article.

19. That the defendant nos. 1 to 8 knew and had reasons to believe that the above imputation will harm the reputation of the defendant and makers/publishers of the statement i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 8 intended to harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

20. That the above mentioned accused in collusion and connivance with each other have published such imputation concerning the plaintiff intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the plaintiff and have thus defamed the plaintiff. Such imputations have directly and indirectly in the estimation of others, lowered the credit, reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.

21. That the above-mentioned defendants have intentionally and deliberately published the aforesaid news articles with the sole objective to harm, disparage, humiliate and injure the reputation of the plaintiff. The statements, remarks and publication made by the above mentioned defendant are without just cause or excuse and have been made malafide solely with the objective to destroy the good fame and reputation of the plaintiff.

22. That the aforesaid imputations qua the plaintiff in the internet portal of Times of India published by the defendants in collusion and connivance with each other have badly lowered down and harmed the image and reputation of the plaintiff and have also damaged the good fame for which the plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss, injury and damage and has caused great pain and distress besides mental agony to the plaintiff. The defendants are therefore liable to be prosecuted for committing defamation.

23. That the adversaries of the plaintiff being malafidely inclined against the plaintiff have made up their mind to defame and malign the plaintiff so as to tarnish his image. Thus, with an ulterior agenda to defame the plaintiff, the defendant made defamatory, false and baseless allegations against him in collusion and conspiracy with each other. The imputations qua the plaintiff are totally false, baseless, mischievous and malafide and have been leveled & published with the sole purpose and objective of defaming the plaintiff and maligning his reputation.

24. That plaintiff submits that the statements, imputations, accusations and insinuations made by the defendant against the plaintiff are blatantly false, malicious and scandalous. The said imputations have been made by the defendants against the plaintiff Plaintiff with intent to defame the plaintiff and lower his reputation in the eyes of one and all and to irretrievably damage and injure his name and reputation, in his circles. The said allegations and claims have been made without the slightest responsibility and concern for the truth. Nothing can be farther from the truth than the whole line of defamatory and damaging allegations made by the defendants accused against the plaintiff. The said news articles have been widely circulated amongst the public at large by way of publication in one of the most circulated and read internet news portal. The said false and baseless allegations were circulated to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and to injure him in his capacity as a widely respected person.

25. That the plaintiff respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court that the plaintiff is the aggrieved person and has good fame and reputation. The fame and reputation of the plaintiff has been lowered down due to the above mentioned acts and omissions of the defendants.

26. That the facts and circumstances stated herein above clearly reveal that the defendants by words intended to be read and by visible representations, have made and published imputation concerning the plaintiff intending to harm, knowingly that such imputation will harm, the reputation of the plaintiff and have also committed the offence of ‘Defamation’ as defined in Section 499 IPC punishable u/s 500 IPC. The plaintiff reserves his right to take action against the defendants under the said provisions of law and the present suit is without prejudice to all the other rights, claims and contentions of the plaintiff.

27. That as the defendants have made false and malicious statements and were acting in connivance and collusion upon having their hands in same glove with each other for causing harm, disrepute, damage and defamation of the plaintiff, hence all the defendants have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy and further as all the defendants were having well in their knowledge that their said acts and omission are wrongful in nature still the defendants went ahead with their aforesaid modus operandi. The defendants have willfully and intentionally aided each other in their acts with respect to tarnishing the image of the plaintiff and also by their omission and commission and connived and conspired in the commission of the offence and are equally liable for the punishment.

28. That since the defendants have done various acts of defaming the plaintiff and also committed criminal offences, thus the plaintiff without prejudice to all his rights and contentions and in the above circumstances is preferring the present suit before this Hon’ble Court seeking necessary orders and directions as prayed in the prayer clause of the present suit as apparently the acts of the defendants are per-se illegal, arbitrary and malafide.

29. That the plaintiff states that this Hon’ble Court has got the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the defendants are available and work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The defamatory material published and circulated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and since the entire cause of action has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Thus this Hon’ble Court has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

30. That the cause of action to institute the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendants in illegal and unlawful manner and without verifying the facts and in order to defame and disparage the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff published the defamatory material and circulated the same.  The cause of action further arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the defamatory material was published and circulated and the known people of the plaintiff upon knowing the and reading the false and defamatory news started neglecting and humiliating the plaintiff. The cause of action is continuing and is in existence as the defendant is continuing with their illegal acts , thus cause of action is continuing and in existence.

31. That the value of the present suit for the purposes of relief of declaration is fixed to Rs. 200/- and for the relief of injunction the valkuse of ths uit is fixed to Rs. 130 each. The value of the present suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fee is fixed to Rs. 460/- and upon which the requisite court fee has been paid and fixed by the plaintiff.

32. That the present suit has been filed and the earliest opportunity and within the prescribed period of limitation.

P R A Y E R :

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

1. Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that the defendants have no right to publish any wrong and defamatory material / news against the plaintiff and without the veracity of the material / news from the plaintiff

2. Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby directing the defendants to remove the defamatory, articles, material etc. from its web site, publication etc. and issuing a Public Notice / Corrigendum that the new / material / article published by the defendants were not proper

3. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby injuncting and restraining the defendants from publishing and material etc. on its web site, print media etc. without verifying the same from the plaintiff

4. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby awarding the cost of the present litigation in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Plaintiff

Through:

U.C. GUPTA
Advocate
New Delhi