IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.10.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA O.A.No.552 of 2011 and A.No.2970 of 2011 in C.S.No.749 of 2010 ORDER This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. to issue interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, from making, spreading or publishing of defamatory statements, against the applicants. 2. It is pleaded, that the applicants are professionals in different fields and are also social activists. The first applicant/plaintiff No.1 is a reputed public accountant in Singapore and Managing Director of a Private Limited Company. He is Founder of "Model School"in Tiruvarur and Chairman of a Public Charitable Institution "Foundation of Justice and Harmony". Thus, highly reputed among Muslims and other related business circle. 3. The second applicant/plaintiff No.2, is an allopathic physician and a social worker. She is devoting her entire medical knowledge for the well-being of the poor people and spending a major part of her income for their well-being. She is contributing all her income for the education of the poor people. She is also running an orphanage in Chennai. 4. Their only son is a Correspondent of a School in Tiruvarur, who is also a Social Worker. The applicants/plaintiffs belong to a reputed family. 5. The first respondent/defendant No.1 is one of the tenants in the multi-storied "Wisma-AHK", owned by AHK Properties (P) Limited, in which the first applicant/plaintiff No.1 is the Managing Director, and the Second applicant/plaintiff No.2 is the Director. The respondents 2 to 4 are the Directors of the respondent/defendant-U.S. Commodity Ventures (P) Ltd. The parties together are contributing their personal attention on day-to-day basis to look after the business of the first respondent/first defendant. 6. It is pleaded that last year, there was a civil dispute between AKH Properties (P) Ltd., and the first respondent/defendant, regarding the installation of dish antennas in the open terrace, and erection of sign boards outside of the fourth floor. The first respondent/defendant committed default, in paying the rent and electricity charges. When the applicants enquired about the rent, the respondents 2 to 4 began to behave in an unusual manner, with the applicants in order to avoid payment of rent. The watchman employed by AHK Properties (P) Ltd., for the security of building was assaulted by them. AHK Properties (P) Ltd., has filed Rent Control Proceedings in the Small Causes Court, against the first respondent/ defendant to fix fair rent for the portion occupied by them. 7. The second respondent/defendant, lodged a false and frivolous complaint dated 21.05.2010 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police alleging that the applicants/plaintiffs trespassed into the office of the respondents/defendants. 8. It is also pleaded, that one Mr.Shawali Ahamed, the father of the defendants 2 to 4, was assaulted on 16.04.2010, which resulted in his death on 11.05.2010. 9. The second respondent/defendant alleged, that the applicants/plaintiffs alone are responsible for the death of his father. 10. In the complaint, it was alleged that prior to the incident, the first appellant/plaintiff had threatened the second defendant and his father. 11. In view of the complaint, it is pleaded that false, derogative allegations were levelled in the complaint, with an intention to defame and the applicants' reputation and to damage the image of the applicants in the society, neighbours and friends. 12. The applicants/plaintiffs AHK Properties (P) Ltd., issued a notice dated 27.05.2010 to the respondents/defendants pointing out certain violations on their part in the rented premises. 13. The first respondent/defendant issued an evasive reply dated 18.06.2010 through its Advocate by alleging the same facts, as stated in the complaint. 14. The first defendant is the company, under the control and administration of the respondents 2 to 4, and that it was on the instructions of the respondents 2 to 4, that the derogative letter was issued on behalf of the first respondent. 15. It is the case of the applicants/plaintiffs, that not only the Company filed, the complaint but the respondents are making scandalous and defamatory statements before all and respectable persons of our religion, neighbours, friends, etc., in order to damage their reputation. 16. The applicants submit that the conduct of the second respondent/defendant in lodging a complaint with a false and frivolous allegation of murder against the applicants/plaintiffs and issuing notice to the applicants on these allegations, is a clear case of defamation. 17. The applicants/plaintiffs spent many sleepless nights on coming to know about the false allegations made by the respondents/defendants. 18. The applicants/plaintiffs issued a notice dated 24.06.2010, to the respondents/defendants calling upon the defendants to tender an unconditional apology and pay damages to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only). The notice was received by the respondents/defendants, but no reply has been given. 19. The contention of the applicant, is that the allegations are serious in nature and it would damage the applicants' reputation and character to a considerable extent. 20. In spite of filing of the suit, the respondents/defendants have not changed their attitude in making defamatory statements and false allegations, and therefore the applicant prays for issuance of interim injunction restraining the defendants from making defamatory statements. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that unless and until the respondents/defendants are restrained from making defamatory statements, the applicants will suffer irreparable loss. 22. On consideration of the aforesaid submission, I find that the application is totally misconceived. A reading of the averments even if taken on the face value shows that no case of defamation is made out, as the averments made are totally vague and the allegations which are said to have damaged the reputation of the applicants, have not been disclosed in this application except that a complaint has been filed and reply to notice sent, without disclosing any effect of these allegations on the near and dear one's so as to suggest there has been any defamation. 23. In any case, there is no material on record to make out a case showing, that any illegality having been committed by the respondents/defendants. 24. The averments with regard to defamation is totally misconceived and cannot be accepted. 25. Admittedly, litigation between the parties are pending in different courts. In any case, if any false complaint is made, the remedy is available to plaintiff/applicant in accordance with law. The applicants are certainly not entitled to seek injunction as prayed for in this application, as no person even in absence of injunction can do any illegal Act. On commission of offence remedy is always available. The object of this application seems to restrain the defendant from prosecuting their legal remedies. 26. Hence, this application is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), to be deposited with Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authority, Madras. kal