Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea By Elder Brother Of Actor Kabir Bedi For Restraining Sale Of Actor's Autobiography Due To Alleged Defamatory Statement

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea by R.T Bedi, elder brother of film Actor Kabir Bedi, challenging an order of the trial court rejecting his prayer to temporarily restrain Kabir Bedi and the publishing house Westland Publications Private Limited, from selling his autobiography titled 'Stories I Must Tell: The Emotional Life of an Actor.'

Further, he sought an ad-interim order of injunction against the defendants for removal of all defamatory statements made against the plaintiff (R. T. Bedi ) from the book.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the appeal and said “I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought in the appeal. The Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 and it does not require any interference of this Court and the appeal suffers from devoid of its merits.”

The appellant had filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum for alleged defamatory statements against him in the book.

He accused Kabir Bedi of making false and wrongful allegations about the plaintiff's fair name and reputation.

It claimed that defendant No.1 (Kabir) had made false statements in the book with the object of increasing its sales, as fiction sells more than facts. 

The trial court rejected the plea stating that the books had already been sold and when sufficient copies had been supplied, removal of defamatory statements made against the plaintiff had to be established by the plaintiff after a full-fledged trial. Hence, the court held that the grant of an interim injunction would amount to a grant of final relief.

The appellant contended that the very allegation made against the plaintiff imputes the character of the plaintiff and it is also pleaded in the plaint as to how it affects the character and reputation of the plaintiff.

It was submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the basic principle for granting or refusing an injunction and taking into account that there would be irreparable injury caused to the appellant and committed an error.

The defendants argued that the reference made in the book, which has been extracted in the plaint did not amount to defamation. The counsel also contended that there was no defamatory statement and the book is nothing but an autobiography of a person, who expressed his feelings.

“It is settled law that the cardinal principle of defamation has to be proved. In law, the essence of defamation is its tendency to, through the defendant's statements, lower the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of others,” it was held.

“In the case on hand, it has to be noted that already the book is published and the same is in a public domain and the same is circulated from 2021 and almost 3 years has elapsed,” it added.

The Court noted that while the order was passed on 27th September 2022, the appeal was filed on 15.06.2023 almost after 9 months, and upheld the contention of the respondents that the appeal was belated in nature.

It noted that while the defendant was a celebrity, the Court would have to form an opinion on whether the same amounts to defamatory speech.

The court concluded that the claim of defamation had to be proven after a full-fledged trial and that the suit filed after the release of the book did not contain any substance to enable the court to restrain the defendant from publication. It said:

The book is already in circulation and in the public domain and question of directing the plaintiff to remove the statements does not arise at this stage unless the plaintiff proves that the said extract which has narrated in the plaint contains in the book made in the context of defamatory statement which imputes the reputation of the plaintiff. Hence, I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought in the appeal.

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate Ajesh Kumar S for Appellant.

Senior Advocate S. Sriranga for Advocate Sumana Naganand for R1.

Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa for Advocate Chintan Chinnappa for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

Case Title: Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T Bedi AND Kabir Bedi.

Case No: M.F.A. NO.8528/2022