1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1579 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1579 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1579 OF 2003 IN IN IN SUIT NO.1518 OF 2003 SUIT NO.1518 OF 2003 SUIT NO.1518 OF 2003 Dubai Cable Company Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff Vs. Nitin Chazed ...Defendant ----- Ms.Sarita D’Lima for Plaintiff Mr. Anand Samant for Defendant CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. CORAM: SMT.R.S.DALVI,J. DATED: 4TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 4TH AUGUST, 2005 DATED: 4TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The suit is filed for damages for loss of 1. The suit is filed for damages for loss of 1. The suit is filed for damages for loss of reputation to the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant reputation to the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant reputation to the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant and for injunction restraining the Defendant from and for injunction restraining the Defendant from and for injunction restraining the Defendant from making publishing or re-publishing the statements made making publishing or re-publishing the statements made making publishing or re-publishing the statements made in his Email message to various parties shown therein. in his Email message to various parties shown therein. in his Email message to various parties shown therein. The Email message is annexed to Exhibit-A to the The Email message is annexed to Exhibit-A to the The Email message is annexed to Exhibit-A to the Plaint. Plaint. Plaint. 2. The Defendant is the Ex-employee of the 2. The Defendant is the Ex-employee of the 2. The Defendant is the Ex-employee of the Plaintiff. He was employed on probation by the Plaintiff. He was employed on probation by the Plaintiff. He was employed on probation by the Plaintiffs on 15th September, 2000. His services have Plaintiffs on 15th September, 2000. His services have Plaintiffs on 15th September, 2000. His services have been terminated on 5th April, 2001. The Defendant has been terminated on 5th April, 2001. The Defendant has been terminated on 5th April, 2001. The Defendant has challenged his termination before the relevant challenged his termination before the relevant challenged his termination before the relevant authority which application has been rejected on 17th authority which application has been rejected on 17th authority which application has been rejected on 17th February 2002. An appeal has been filed therefrom. February 2002. An appeal has been filed therefrom. February 2002. An appeal has been filed therefrom. The parties are at dispute about the position of that The parties are at dispute about the position of that The parties are at dispute about the position of that 2 appeal at present. appeal at present. appeal at present. 3. The Plaintiffs were in the business of 3. The Plaintiffs were in the business of 3. The Plaintiffs were in the business of supplying electronic cable links supplying electronic cable links supplying electronic cable links. The Plaintiff is The Plaintiff is The Plaintiff is stated to have supplied electronic cable links stated to have supplied electronic cable links stated to have supplied electronic cable links interalia to CitiBank during the tenure of Defendant. interalia to CitiBank during the tenure of Defendant. interalia to CitiBank during the tenure of Defendant. The Defendant claims knowledge of the fact of certain The Defendant claims knowledge of the fact of certain The Defendant claims knowledge of the fact of certain defective supplies made by the Plaintiff. These defective supplies made by the Plaintiff. These defective supplies made by the Plaintiff. These defective supplies if any, of which the Defendant has defective supplies if any, of which the Defendant has defective supplies if any, of which the Defendant has knowledge were made during his tenure between knowledge were made during his tenure between knowledge were made during his tenure between September, 2000 and April, 2001. However, the Email September, 2000 and April, 2001. However, the Email September, 2000 and April, 2001. However, the Email at Exhibit-A has been sent by the Defendant on 10th at Exhibit-A has been sent by the Defendant on 10th at Exhibit-A has been sent by the Defendant on 10th February, 2003, 10 months after his termination from February, 2003, 10 months after his termination from February, 2003, 10 months after his termination from service and after his claim challenging that service and after his claim challenging that service and after his claim challenging that termination on 17th June, 2002. termination on 17th June, 2002. termination on 17th June, 2002. 4. Primafacie therefore, the Email which was sent 4. Primafacie therefore, the Email which was sent 4. Primafacie therefore, the Email which was sent out after such delay must be taken to be lacking out after such delay must be taken to be lacking out after such delay must be taken to be lacking bonafide made by a disgruntled ex-employee. bonafide made by a disgruntled ex-employee. bonafide made by a disgruntled ex-employee. 5. The contents of Email show that the employees 5. The contents of Email show that the employees 5. The contents of Email show that the employees of CitiBank were at risk due to certain misdeeds of of CitiBank were at risk due to certain misdeeds of of CitiBank were at risk due to certain misdeeds of few companies. The Defendant refers to ‘‘certain few companies. The Defendant refers to ‘‘certain few companies. The Defendant refers to ‘‘certain documentary, photographic and Email correspondences’’. documentary, photographic and Email correspondences’’. documentary, photographic and Email correspondences’’. The Email shows that the Defendant is ready to part The Email shows that the Defendant is ready to part The Email shows that the Defendant is ready to part with proofs with any one who has concern for human with proofs with any one who has concern for human with proofs with any one who has concern for human life. life. life. 6. Since this is an action in tort, for an 6. Since this is an action in tort, for an 6. Since this is an action in tort, for an 3 injunction to prevent defamation, the Defendant is injunction to prevent defamation, the Defendant is injunction to prevent defamation, the Defendant is required to show justification for the said Email required to show justification for the said Email required to show justification for the said Email having been sent out by him. Once such justification having been sent out by him. Once such justification having been sent out by him. Once such justification is shown the injunction cannot be issued. I called is shown the injunction cannot be issued. I called is shown the injunction cannot be issued. I called upon the Defendant’s Advocate to show me some proof upon the Defendant’s Advocate to show me some proof upon the Defendant’s Advocate to show me some proof either documentary or photographic to substantiate his either documentary or photographic to substantiate his either documentary or photographic to substantiate his allegation of danger to human life. None has been allegation of danger to human life. None has been allegation of danger to human life. None has been shown. shown. shown. 7. Though there is no affidavit in reply to this 7. Though there is no affidavit in reply to this 7. Though there is no affidavit in reply to this Notice of Motion, the Defendant has filed his written Notice of Motion, the Defendant has filed his written Notice of Motion, the Defendant has filed his written statement. Allegations of defective supply is made in statement. Allegations of defective supply is made in statement. Allegations of defective supply is made in para 4. In the written statement no proof as offered para 4. In the written statement no proof as offered para 4. In the written statement no proof as offered by the Defendant has been shown, even primafacie. by the Defendant has been shown, even primafacie. by the Defendant has been shown, even primafacie. Hence no justification is made out. Hence no justification is made out. Hence no justification is made out. 8. The Defendants’ Advocate says that the 8. The Defendants’ Advocate says that the 8. The Defendants’ Advocate says that the Defendant has not sent out any Email after the Email Defendant has not sent out any Email after the Email Defendant has not sent out any Email after the Email Exhibit-A and hence, no case for injunction is made Exhibit-A and hence, no case for injunction is made Exhibit-A and hence, no case for injunction is made out. out. out. 9. It is seen that the Email Exhibit-A is vague 9. It is seen that the Email Exhibit-A is vague 9. It is seen that the Email Exhibit-A is vague and made without any particulars. No substantiation and made without any particulars. No substantiation and made without any particulars. No substantiation of any statements is shown by the Defendant. of any statements is shown by the Defendant. of any statements is shown by the Defendant. 10. An ad-interim injunction was issued by Justice 10. An ad-interim injunction was issued by Justice 10. An ad-interim injunction was issued by Justice Bobde on 10th June, 2003. The Ad-interim order must Bobde on 10th June, 2003. The Ad-interim order must Bobde on 10th June, 2003. The Ad-interim order must therefore continue. Hence, the Notice of Motion made therefore continue. Hence, the Notice of Motion made therefore continue. Hence, the Notice of Motion made absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to absolute in terms of prayer (a). No order as to 4 costs. costs. costs. (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)