1 nms-2339-06-s-1835-06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2339 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1835 OF 2006. K.J. Raju @ Kudunthail John Raju. ..Plaintiff. vs. Shri K. Girijavallabhan & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. B.K. Sasidharan, for Plaintiff. None for Defendants. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2010. P.C. By the above Suit, the Plaintiff has sought an Order and Decree against the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the damage/injury caused to his reputation by the Defendants and has also prayed that the Defendants be restrained by a permanent order and injunction of this Court from making or publishing any further imputations which are defamatory in nature, concerning the reputation of the Plaintiff in any form or manner. By the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought temporary injunction against the Defendants in terms of permanent injunction sought in the Plaint. 2. None appeared for the Defendants on 28th July 2010 and on 8th December 2010, when the Notice of Motion was called out for hearing. Even today, none appear for the Defendants. This Court is therefore, constrained to proceed with the hearing of the Notice of Motion in the absence of the Defendants. 2 nms-2339-06-s-1835-06 3. One M/s. Angels Corporation were enlisted in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) as Class-IV (Civil) Contractor for a period of five years with effect from 29th May 2002 vide order no. 12/2002 dated 29th May 2002 issued by the Central Public Works Department. The said M/s. Angels Corporation were thereafter black-listed by the Central Public Works Department and an order dated 16th February 2006 was issued by the Defendant No.1 recording that the name of M/s. Angels Corporation is removed from the approved list of Class-IV (Civil) Contractors and the said Agency should not be entrusted with any work in the department in any name or style. 4. Though the Plaintiff is admittedly not a Contractor on the approved list of the Contractors maintained by the Central Public Works Department but has only acted as a Sub-Contractor of M/s. Angels Corporation, the Defendant No.1 in his order dated 16th February 2006 inter-alia recorded that - “though M/s.kudunthail Construction Company is not presently enlisted with CPWD, the Agency/Proprietor should not be entrusted with any work in the Department in any name or style.” The said office order no.1/2006 dated 16th February 2006 was up on the website of the Central Public Works Department. 5. The Plaintiff therefore, filed the above Suit inter-alia contending that he has no privity of contract with the Central Public Works Department and the Central Public Works Department has not given any show cause notice or a hearing to the Plaintiff before recording the aforestated statement in its order and displaying it on its website. The Plaintiff has submitted that by publishing the said order on its website, the Defendants are maligning the reputation of 3 nms-2339-06-s-1835-06 the Plaintiff with an intention to cause injury to his reputation and goodwill as a Civil Contractor. Because of the said imputations made and published by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has suffered serious injury to his reputation, prestige and goodwill. 6. The Defendant No.1 has filed his Affidavit. In the said Affidavit, the Defendant No.1 has relied on a letter dated 24th December 2005 of Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai Region, stating that the report will show that there is sufficient material for launching prosecution under section 120-B read with section 420, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and any substantive offences inter-alia against the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 has not produced any report of the Central Bureau of Investigation. After receipt of the report from the Central Bureau of Investigation, no hearing is given to the Plaintiff nor is the report of the CBI has been forwarded to the Plaintiff. Though the criminal case is filed inter-alia against the Plaintiff, the same is not yet decided. 7. In the circumstances, in my view, the Defendants without issuing any show cause notice to the Plaintiff and without hearing the Plaintiff in the absence of any privity of contract with the Plaintiff have not only blacklisted him but have made the said imputations against him and published the same on their website which is likely to cause injury to the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff as a Civil Contractor. The Notice of Motion is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]