Bengaluru Court Can Try Suit By Resident Manna Dey's Daughter Against 'Defamatory' Bengali Content Published At West Bengal: Karnataka HC

Karnataka High Court has held that a competent court in Bengaluru will have jurisdiction to hear the defamation suit filed by late singer Manna Dey's kin, for restraining certain entities from circulating a Bengali language book on the late singer.

Justice H P Sandesh pointed that though the book is published in West Bengal, it is available in Bengaluru.

The High Court held thus while setting aside an order of the trial court which had dismissed the suit filed by Shumita Deb–the daughter of late music director and singer Manna Dey–and her husband against Gautam Bhattacharya and others.

The trial court while dismissing suit filed by Deb and her husband had reasoned that the language published in the newspaper (Anand Bazaar Patrika) and book (Taradar Shesh Chitthi) is in Bengali and the same having been sold in Bengaluru does not mean that the Trial Court has got the territorial jurisdiction.

High Court however referred to Section 19 CPC and said that the trial court failed to notice that the wrong was done in Bengaluru. It said:

“Trial Court committed an error coming to a conclusion that merely because book is sold in Bengaluru, jurisdiction does not arise within this Court and the same is an erroneous approach when the wrong was done in Bengaluru by selling the books and by circulating the same in Bengaluru and restricted meaning of Section 19 of CPC with regard to the jurisdiction to file the suit and fails to take note of the fact that wrong was done in Bengaluru and also made an error in making an observation that book was published in Bengali language”.

For context, Section 19 CPC pertains Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. It states that where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Background

The plaintiffs-appellants had sought an injunction against the defendants-respondents from reprinting, circulating or modifying and publishing in any manner whatsoever the "defamatory, false and man-aligning content" contained in certain pages of a book titled “Tarader Sesh Chitthi” about the late singer Manna Dey.

They had further sought for a permanent injunction against defendant No.6–Entertainment Network India Pvt. Ltd., not to air or communicate in any manner any content specified in the allegedly infringing book.

The appellants had also sought furnishing of the true and fair accounts of sale and circulation of the infringing Book in physical and virtual form and anybody acting from making, publishing, circulating and also to direct the respondents-defendants to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000 to the plaintiffs as compensation. A further direction was sought to defendant No.1-Bhattacharya to individually pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000 to the plaintiffs towards damages.

The plaintiffs-appellants contended that respondent-defendant No.1 has "engaged in a vilifying campaign" against the plaintiffs by publishing an article in Anand Bazar Patrika dated October 28, 2013 and subsequently publishing a chapter in book called “Taradar Shesh Chitthi”.

The plaintiffs-appellants contended contended that the article written by defendant No.1 about Manna Dey is false and malicious, more particularly regarding the private relationship of plaintiffs' and Manna Dey and the said article has been published to expose plaintiffs to public hatred and ridicule and the articles which are published are defamatory in nature.

The defendants appeared before the trial court and filed the written statement contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also the suit is barred by limitation and also contended that the publication which are made out of right of freedom of press. After

The appellants pointed out that a temporary injunction was earlier granted by the trial court and which came to be confirmed by the High Court. They argued that the trial court's order of dismissing the suit was passed without considering Section 19 of Civil Procedure Code, and that it was a non-speaking order containing extraneous reasons.

The respondents on the other hand contended that under Section 19, option is not available to file the case in Bengaluru and the Trial Court has rightly taken note of Section 19. Moreover, an interview given about the book in Bengaluru cannot be a ground to invoke jurisdiction of the court here. It was argued that no such wrong was done within the jurisdiction of the trial court since articles and books are published in Kolkata. The counsel vehemently contended that same is in Bengali language and the appellants ought to have file the suit where the defendants resides or work for gain.

Findings

The bench on going through the records noted that the infringing books were sold in Bengaluru at Bengali Book Stall set up during Durga Pooja in the year 2016 and cause of action continues as infringing books are available for sale through online e-commerce websites in India including Bengaluru and all the book stores in West Bengal.. Respondents also do not dispute the same, the high court noted.

Referring to section 19CPC the high court said, “Section 19 states that where a suit is filed for compensation for wrong done to the person and if it is done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, it is an option of the plaintiff to institute a suit either of the said Courts”.

The bench thereafter said, “When books were sold in Bengaluru that too during Durga pooja season, people including Bengalis will attend who are residing in Bengaluru and having contact with the appellants since the appellants are residing in Bengaluru since 1994. All these aspects have not been disputed by the respondents. It is a specific case of the appellants that immediately after selling those books, the people who are residing in Bengaluru contacted the appellants and brought to notice of defamatory statements made in the said books and discussed the issue. Hence, it is clear that wrong was done within the local jurisdiction of the Trial Court”.

The high court said that Section 19 CPC is very clear and the suit is filed for the relief of wrong done to persons.

Then it held, “Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that mere selling of books in Bengaluru will not cause any injury to the appellants”.

Further it said, “The very reasoning given by the Trial Court is erroneous when the suit is filed for the injunctive relief as well as damages, defamation and for compensation, ought to have taken note of both Sections 19 and 20 of CPC as contended by the counsel for the appellants. The contention that where the defendants reside, the appellants ought to have filed the suit therein cannot be accepted”.

Accordingly it allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to proceed to consider the matter on merits by trying the case in accordance with law.

Case Title: Shumita Deb & ANR AND Gautam Bhattacharya & Others

Counsel for Appellants: Advocates Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni and Dharmendra Chatur

Counsel for Respondent 1: Advocate Suman K.S and Umesha R

Counsel for Respondent 6: Advocate B.V Nidhishree

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 487

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6128 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order