IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 04.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL O.S.A. NO. 255 OF 2007 AND M.P. NO. 1 OF 2007 1. M/s. Sun TV Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director "Anna Arivalayam" Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018. 2. Mr. M.Kalanithi Maran 3. Mr. V.Raja .. Appellants - Vs - 1. Dinamalar (A Partnership Concern) No.161-A, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002, rep. by its Partner, Sri.R.Sathiamurthi 2.Mr. R.Sathiamurthi .. Respondents Original Side Appeal filed against the order dated 8th Aug., 2007, passed by learned single Judge in O.A. No.898/07 in C.S. No.666/07. For Appellants : Mr. P.S.Raman, SC, for Mr. B.K.Girish Neelakandan For Respondents : Mr. K.V.Subramanian, SC, for Mr. M.A.Abdul Wahab JUDGMENT S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who preferred the suit, C.S. No.666/07 for direction on defendants (appellants herein) to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as damages for the defamation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ publishing/telecasting or broadcasting the news depicting Mr.Ramesh as "Dinamalar Ramesh" or "Owner of Dinamalar" either by way of picture, sound or scroll methods in their TV channel, namely, Sun TV, Sun Group TV Network, etc. 2. In an application for grant of ad-interim injunction, in the manner as sought for in the suit, learned Judge, by impugned order, made following observation and passed ad-interim injunction :- "21. ..... I do not find that at this stage, it is advisable to get into the merits and demerits of the claims of the parties. The plaintiff has no objection in the publication of any news items except in cases where the narration is of such a nature to cause damage to the image of the plaintiff. I do not find any illegality or irrationality in such a plea. Considering the same, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction which is restricted only to the extent of descriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of the partner of the plaintiff firm or prefixing the name of the plaintiff's newspaper to the name of Ramesh." 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ramesh is the son of Dr.R.Krishnamurthy, who is one of the partners of the 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar. The said 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, has already preferred an earlier suit, C.S. No.626/07 for same cause of action and prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 of the suit, who are also defendants in the subsequent suit (C.S. No.666/07), their men, agents, servants, representatives, etc., from and in any way interfering with the business of the plaintiff, Dinamalar, either by making any publication or any telecast in Sun TV, Sun News, Dinakaran or in Tamil Murasu against the plaintiffs, its internal affairs, its partners, employees under the guise of publishing or telecasting calling it as news item, thereby attempting to ruin the business of the plaintiff. In the said suit, though interim injunction was sought for with similar prayer as made in the present case, no interim order of injunction has been passed and mere notice has been issued on the defendants. Subsequent suit, i.e., the present one, C.S. No.666/07 has been preferred by the same 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, through another partner and claimed for damages and similar permanent order of injunction, suppressing the fact relating to filing of the earlier suit in which notice has been issued. Learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, assailed the institution of the second suit, apart from interim order of injunction as issued in the said suit, on the following grounds :- a) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, being common to both the suit, consequently, non-disclosure of earlier suit in the present suit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amounts to suppresio veri / suggestio falsi and, therefore, relief of interim injunction should not have been granted in the subsequent suit; b) The 1st plaintiff, Dinamalar, having sued the defendant for bare permanent injunction, having disclosed in the first suit that they have suffered damages, are barred from filing the second suit without taking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and c) The defendants (appellants herein) are part of the Press and Electronic Media, publication of any news item cannot be restrained by passing interim order of injunction pursuant to an interlocutory application in a defamatory suit. He placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal & Anr. - Vs – J.Jayalalitha & Anr. reported in 2006 (2) LW 377. That case arose out of a suit for defamation and the appeal was preferred against order granting injunction. In the said case, Division Bench observed that though the expression "freedom of press is not used in Article 19, it is included as one of the guarantees under Article 19 (1) (a); right to publish and freedom of press is enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) are sacrosanct and only parameters of restrictions are provided under Article 19 (2); freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance in a democratic constitution, which envisages changes in the composition of Legislatures and Governments, and must be preserved". In the said case, it was held that the order of single Judge amounted to a gag order or censorship of press. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, while tried to suggest that there are separate cause of action and separate relief has been sought for in two different suits, submitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to sue the defendants for damages. Referring to news items published in newspaper "Dinakaran" as well as in the TV channel, it was submitted that false news were made against the plaintiff firm depicting an ex-employee as one of the partners son. It is stated that false allegation against the plaintiffs had prejudiced the business of the applicant and in such circumstance, a prima facie case having made out, taking into consideration the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, learned Judge rightly passed the impugned order. 5. We have noticed the rival contentions as also the order dated 8th Aug., 2007, passed by learned Judge in the interlocutory application as was preferred by respondents/plaintiffs. It has been accepted by respondents/plaintiffs that Mr.Ramesh is the son of Dr.R.Krishnamurthy, who is one of the partners of Dinamalar. It is also admitted at Bar that a free printing or electronic media/press is independent to report and highlight any fact, if not distorted and if not issued to malign any individual person, including a partnership firm or company. It is admitted by counsel for the appellants/defendants that Mr.Ramesh himself do not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prefix or suffix the word "Dinamalar", i.e., the name of the newspaper/partnership firm before or after his name. Therefore, the printing or electronic media/press cannot prefix or suffix name of a newspaper or a partnership firm before the name of Mr.Ramesh. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that Mr.Ramesh is not the owner of "Dinamalar" and, therefore, no publicity can be given by any Press through printing or electronic media showing Mr.Ramesh as owner of 'Dinamalar'. Such fact having admitted, we are of the view that the respondents/plaintiffs has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, particularly in the manner as they have sought for. 6. So far as the question relating to suppression of fact relating to earlier suit or taking leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we are of the view that no specific finding could have been given by learned Judge, without taking into consideration the evidence as may be placed during trial and merely on the basis of the submission made by the parties. Therefore, learned Judge rightly refused to express any opinion with regard to such objection relating to suppression of fact or maintainability of the second suit in absence of leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. So far as impugned order dated 8th Aug., 2007, passed by learned single Judge is concerned, we have noticed the submission as made by counsel for the appellants/defendants that learned single Judge, while held that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction, which is restricted to prefixing the name of the plaintiff newspaper to the name of Mr.Ramesh, also observed that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction to the extent of descriptive manner of depicting the said Mr.Ramesh as the son of the partner of the plaintiff firm. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs accepted that no such injunction was sought for to the extent of descriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of the partner of the plaintiff firm. This is also clear from the relief as sought for in the main suit and application for interim injunction as was preferred in C.S. No.666/07. We, therefore, hold that the order of injunction passed by learned Judge dated 8th Aug., 2007, so far as it relates to restricting the appellants/defendants to the extent of descriptive manner of depicting the said Ramesh as the son of the partner of the plaintiff firm is uncalled for and, thereby, we set aside such part of the observation and order of injunction as issued by learned single Judge. 8. Considering the facts of the case and the stand taken by the parties, we hold that the respondents/plaintiffs is entitled to an order of injunction, which is restricted only to the extent of prefixing the name of plaintiff newspaper to the name of Mr.Ramesh and/or depicting the said Ramesh as the owner of Dinamalar. Recording the submissions, the injunction granted by learned single https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge dated 8th Aug., 2007, is modified to the extent above. The rest of the issues as may be raised, including leave obtained or not or the maintainability of the second suit may be gone into at the time of the trial. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. GLN Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, Madras.104. VRK (co) sg 09/01/08 JUDGMENT IN O.S.A. NO. 255 OF 2007 Pronounced on 04.01.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/