Nusli Wadia Withdraws Defamation Cases Against Rata Tata

The legal fight between Bombay Dyeing Chairman Nusli Wadia and Tata Group Chairman Emeritus Rata Tata has attained a quietus, with the former agreeing to withdraw all defamation cases filed against the latter, including a suit claiming damages of Rs 3000 crores.

Last week, the Supreme Court had urged both the billionaires to resolve their differences as "industry leaders".

On Monday, the Supreme Court recorded Ratan Tata's statement that he had no intention to defame Wadia.

"In view of the statement made by Tata that there was no intention to defame Wadia, which is in accordance with the finding of the high court, the petitioner is hereby allowed to withdraw the present petition as well as the pending suit for damages," the bench headed by CJI Gogoi said.

The top court told senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for Wadia, that court appreciates his client for the response.

The bench comprising CJI S A Bobde, Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant was hearing a special leave petition filed by Wadia challenging the Bombay High Court's judgment which quashed the criminal defamation case filed by him against Ratan Tata and ten others.

The criminal defamation case was filed in wake of his removal as an independent director of Tata Sons.

The case has some nexus with the Tata Sons- Cyrus Mistry dispute. Wadia, who had backed Mistry, was removed following Mistry's removal.

The Bombay HC held that the publication of resolution regarding Wadia's removal did not amount to criminal defamation.

In the judgment passed on July 23, 2019, the HC bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Bharati Dangre held :

"We are satisfied that there is no prima facie case of defamation in the present case as there was no intent on the part of the petitioners to cause harm to the reputation of the respondent as contemplated by Section 499 of the IPC nor can we discern any actual harm caused to his reputation, since the element of mens rea being absent and since the publication was only limited to the Board of Directors of the holding Company and the respective shareholders of these Companies, it could not be said that it was circulated widely over a section of general public.

Publication of the news about a resolution being passed by a well acclaimed business house happened to be a business news for the media and both the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 being well­known business personalities, they drew the attention of the media and the allegations/imputations and the story of removal of the respondent no.2, no wonder, happened to be a hot topic for media. However, it is not conclusively established as to it is the petitioners who have leaked the information to the media and particularly when we have noted that the respondent no.2 himself had addressed the communication to the shareholders independent of his representation in terms of sub­section (4) of Section 169 and which he requested for being circulated to the shareholders.

The allegations of the respondent no.2 in respect of disparaging remarks/comments being widely circulated is also not correct since it was only circulated to the shareholders and they had a right to know the background of the resolution on which they were supposed to vote."

(With PTI inputs)