Mere Interview In Delhi Won’t Give Delhi Courts The Jurisdiction To Entertain Resultant Defamation Suit: HC [Read Judgment]
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, ruled that the Courts in Delhi would not have jurisdiction to entertain a defamation suit merely due to the fact that the interview on which the defaming article was based was conducted in Delhi.“… for a suit seeking compensation/damages for defamation, publication is a sine qua non because it is only by publication of the alleged defamatory article that...
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, ruled that the Courts in Delhi would not have jurisdiction to entertain a defamation suit merely due to the fact that the interview on which the defaming article was based was conducted in Delhi.
“… for a suit seeking compensation/damages for defamation, publication is a sine qua non because it is only by publication of the alleged defamatory article that the alleged defamatory statement or article comes to the knowledge of the general public including those persons in whose estimation the plaintiff is brought down and is defamed. Therefore, mere interview in itself taken of the appellant/plaintiff does not result in arising of cause of action in Delhi, inasmuch as, defamation is caused only on account of the article which has been published in the Hindi newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar and having circulation only at Bhagalpur in Bihar,” Justice Valmiki J. Mehta
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by one Mr. Deepak Kumar, who had challenged an order passed by the Trial Court in May last year, wherein the plaint was returned to be presented to the correct territorial jurisdiction.
Allegations of defamation were leveled by Mr. Kumar against Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd., after publication of an article in August, 2014, in Bhagalpur, Bihar edition of the Hindi newspaper Hindustan.
With regard to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi to entertain the suit, Mr. Kumar had now argued that since the Defendant Company had its head office in Delhi, the corresponding Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The Court, however, noted that it had already been held by the Apex Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, (1991) 4 SCC 270, that a mere plea of existence of head office of the Defendant Company will not confer jurisdiction on a Court, if the Defendant Company has a branch office at the place where whole or part of the case of action arises.
The Court, further, opined that the Appellant was “misleading the Court” by arguing that since the interview had taken place in Delhi, the Courts in Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the suit.
“Therefore, it is seen that the entire cause of action as regards defamation has arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi, inasmuch as, defamation is alleged to have been caused on account of publication of the article in daily newspaper Hindustan at Bhagalpur in Bihar. Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that no part of the cause of action has accrued in Delhi for this Court to have territorial jurisdiction,” the Court, thereby, ruled.
Observing that the appeal was a “gross wastage of judicial time”, the Court, thereafter, dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited with the website bharatkeveer.gov.in, within a period of two weeks.
Read the Judgment Here