Experion Developers Private Limited v. UP Television Network Private Limited

2. Defamatory Report alleges that land on which the project has been launched was illegally acquired in collusion with politicians and is not registered or recognized by the LDA (Lucknow

1. The Experion Capital Project is a mixed use project with both residential and commercial components, spread over 27,573.95 sq. mts. contiguous plots of land, in fact is one of Development Authority). Also, that there are disputes regarding the title of the land. (Referred to in Para 6 (b) of the Plaint Defamatory Transcript at Exhibit B – PW[3] at Page 99. the most prime areas in Lucknow. The said project is being built on land over which the plaintiff has clear title and after obtaining all requisite clearances as explained hereinbelow.

2. The allegations are baseless and devoid of any element of truth because the Experion Capital Project is being undertaken on two adjoining and contiguous parcels of land numbered TCG /1-A-V-6 and TCG /1-A-V-7. The said land was sold by Lucknow Development Authority (‘LDA’) by Registered Sale Deeds dated January 18, 2008 and March 20, 2008 to M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd. (Referred to in Para 6 (b) of the Plaint, Exhibit C-PW[3] at Page 3 to 33 and 49 to 62)

3. Further, vide Registered Sale Deeds dated February 01, 2008 and April 09, 2008, aforementioned land was bought by Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. from M/s. A.N.S. Constructions Ltd. (Referred to in Para 6 (b) of the Plaint, Exhibit C-PW[3] at Page 34 to 48 and 63 to 86)

4. Vide fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated January 23, 2012, Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. changed its name to Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the plaintiff herein. (Referred to in Para 6(b) of the plaint, Exhibit A – PW-3 at Page 87)

5. It is also pertinent to note that the investigative journalist website, Cobrapost, did a sting operation on the defendant for paid news and Under Operation 136: Part II released by Cobrapost on May 25 2018, Marketing and Sales Head along with Editor-in-Chief and Owner of the defendant, Bharat Samachar, are seen to be attacking certain political parties.

3. Defamatory Report states that the building plan has not been sanctioned by the LDA. In support, it says RERA Registration number on RERA website and Building Plan Approval Number as stated on plaintiff’s website are different.

4. Defamatory Report also states that project is approved by UPRERA in Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil, but the plaintiff has represented to the public at large that the location of the Experion Capital Project is at Gomti Nagar.

1. The Experion Capital Project is being developed in a phase wise manner, Phase I of the Project has been registered so far with UPRERA. The project is situated at Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Tehsil – Lucknow District and reference to Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil is erroneous on RERA website. Relevant Tehsil for project is Lucknow as is evident from other documents uploaded on UPRERA website at the time of registration viz – Sale Deeds clearance from LDA and other civic authorities etc., Google Map Co-ordinates etc. (Referred to in Para 6 (b) of the Plaint, Exhibit F & G – PW-4 at Page 88 to 92), (Exhibit C-PW-3 at Page 3 to

86)

2. These documents are open for public inspection but have been ignored by defamatory report. The Defendant has deliberately ignored all the available public record in order to intentionally and maliciously telecast the Defamatory Report, in order to cause significant harm and damage to the plaintiff.

5. Defamatory Report states that Plot Number on plaintiff’s website is TCG/1-A-V-7 whereas on LDA website, it is TCG/1-A-V-6

1. The Defamatory Report conveniently omits to state that the Experion Capital Project is being constructed on two contiguous plots and the LDA software accepts only one plot Number for a project. Thus, only first plot number shows on LDA website. The building plan approved by LDA shows both Plot numbers. Accordingly, there is no fraud being sought to be committed by the plaintiff as alleged.

2. Gomti Nagar is one of the most premium areas in Lucknow and in any event, significantly more premium that Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil. The Experion Capital Project has been marketed and advertised by the plaintiff as being located at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

8. According to Mr. Airi, the defamatory report has caused immense harm to the reputation of the plaintiff Company in the eyes of the potential customers / lenders / suppliers / vendors / employees / stakeholders and general public at large, especially in Delhi and other areas. Furthermore, the report is devoid of fairness and honesty and the same is blatantly false and malafide.

9. The suit came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on January 23, 2018 when summons were issued on the suit and notice on the accompanying interlocutory application bearing I.A. NO. 1107/2018 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

10. It is also noted that on the second date of hearing i.e. January 30, 2018, the defendant Company entered appearance through Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. August 01, 2018 when the matter was scheduled for framing of issues, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte, as it was recorded that the defendant had not filed the written statement within the prescribed time and had also failed to put in appearance. The Court through the same order listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on October 03, 2018 for plaintiff’s evidence.

11. Thereafter, Mr. Rakesh Kaul / PW-1, MD and CEO of plaintiff Company, Mr. Keshav Wadhwani / PW-2, Deputy Manager of plaintiff Company, Mr. Suneet Puri / PW-3, Vice President of project at plaintiff Company and Mr.Vinay Narang / PW-4, Senior GM (Group) Corporate Communications and public relations at plaintiff Company, all filed affidavits of examination-in-chief dated September 25, 2018.

12. On November 27, 2018 when the matter was fixed for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff, PW-1 / Mr.Rakesh Kaul and PW-4 / Mr.Vinay Narang were examined and discharged. The matter next came up for the remainder of the plaintiff’s evidence on January 21, 2019 when PW-2 / Mr.Keshav Wadhwani and PW-3 / Mr.Suneet Puri were examined and plaintiff’s evidence was closed.

13. In their examination-in-chief, the witnesses have stated as under: “(i) PW1- Mr. Rakesh Kaul, MD & CEO of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. On 18.01.2018 the Defendant started telecasting on its channel as well as publishing on online media through its website Bharatsamachartv.in and also on “YouTube”, “Facebook” and “Twitter”, its report against Plaintiff’s newly launched project named “Experion Capital” at two contiguous plots numbers TCG/1-A-V-6 and TCG/1-A-V-7 Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. This project is a mixed use project with both residential and commercial components spread over 27573.95 sqmts contiguous plots of land. The defamatory report is false, misleading, malicious, concocted and extremely defamatory. The defendants did not even bother to speak to the representatives of the Plaintiff, or to verity, or cross check the allegations made therein, before telecasting and publishing the defamatory reports. When the Plaintiff has acquired the said lands from a M/s. A.N.S. Constructions Ltd. vide registered sale deeds dated 01.02.2008 and 09.04.2008 it was known as “Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.” and subsequently the name was changed to Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. It is also stated that there are no pending litigation affecting the title of the plaintiff over the subject land. It is alleged by the defendants that the building plans for the Experion Capital Project have not been sanctioned by the LDA and that the RERA registration number of the Experion Capital Project as on RERA’s website and the building plan approval number as stated on the Plaintiff’s website are different and cast doubt on the approvals and registration of the land in question. It is submitted that building plans for the said project have been approved by the LDA on 12.01.2017. Plaintiff has also been given a ‘Permit to Construct’ number 41210 on 08.03.2017 based on the building plan approval. The RERA Registration number allotted for the Experion Capital Project by UPRERA is UPRERAPRJ4224. It is stated that the Plaintiff have obtained NOCs UP Pollution Control Board, Electricity Distribution Division (Gomti Nagar), Traffic Police to LDA and Fire Services Department to LDA for the said project as required under demand letter issued by LDA dt. 21.01.2017. Furthermore, the LDA and UPRERA are two different statutory authorities and different jurisdictions and approval processes and that RERA registration is only granted after approval of building plans. Hence the contention that the building plans have not been approved are false. Experion Capital Project is situated at Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Tehsil, Lucknow District and not at Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil which is also a part of Lucknow District. The reference to “Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil” as the relevant tehsil of the project is that at the time of selecting the relevant Tehsil from the drop down menu of the online form in the online registration submission at the RERA website is erroneous. The plaintiff does not own any land in Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil and that at the time of registration of the documents uploaded make it clear that the project is located in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The plaintiff cannot extract any unfair advantage over unsuspecting buyers by claiming that the project is in Mohan Lal Ganj and not in Gomti Nagar. It is the defendants who have chosen to ignore the public record available and continue to telecast the malicious report. The report states that the plot number of the project on the plaintiff’s website reads as TCG/1-A-V-7 and whereas on the site of the LDA it reads ad TCG/1-A-V-6. The project is being constructed on both the contiguous plots and that the software used by the LDA to generate permits accepts only one single property number. Accordingly. only the first number of the plot number shows i.e. TCG/1-A-V-6 shows in the permit; the building plans approved by the LDA make it evident that both plot numbers are included. The report contains a video clip of Mr. D.M. Katihar purportedly working for the LDA who states that the allegation levelled need to be examined. The video doesn’t show the background provided to Mr. Katihar. When this video clip was brought to the knowledge of Mr. Prabhu Singh Vice Chairman, LDA on 20.01.018 he tweeted from his personal twitter handle that Experion Capital Project has been duly approved by the LDA and that the defendant should check the background before carrying out such a news item. The Plaintiff has a network of Rs.1,127.94 Crores and is claiming only nominal damages in the present suit for loss of reputation, present and future customers and other business opportunities. The damages caused to the plaintiff are in excess of Rs. 2 Crores and currently estimated at Rs.2.25 Crores.

(ii) PW-2, Mr. Keshav Wadhwani Deputy Manager of

Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. On 18.01.2018, the defendant started telecasting the defamatory report through various fora including its channel, website and other social media platforms such as “YouTube”, “Facebook”, “Twitter” along with its website bharatsamachartv.in w.r.t plots; TCG/1-A-V-6 and TCG/1-A-V-7 Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. There is a use of abusive language against the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff are here to spread a web of deceit and that the officials of UPRERA also acknowledge the same, while no source of this information has been provided. It went on to state that the plaintiff has come to loot customers in Lucknow after having looted the customers of Delhi and Noida. Whereas the Plaintiff has not undertaken a single real estate project so far in Delhi or Noida but only in Gurgaon. It was alleged by the defendants that the land was acquired illegally through in collusion with politicians affiliated to Ms. Mayawati and that same is not recognized or registered by the LDA, furthermore that there are disputes to the title of the land. It is stated that land was first sold by LDA to M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd. vide registered sale deeds dated 20.03.2008 and 18.01.2008 and brought by Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide sale deeds dt. 01.02.2008 and 09.04.2008. Thereafter the name of “Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.” was subsequently changed to “Experion Developers Private Limited”. The project is being developed in a phase wise manner and that phase I of the project has ben registered with UPRERA which has been allotted the UPRERAPRJ4224 registration number. The project is situated in Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar and not Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil which is also a part of Lucknow District. The plaintiff cannot take any unfair advantage of the fact that the UPRERA website shows the project to be in Mohan Lal Ganj as the project is situated in Gomti Nagar. The defendant has chosen not to refer to the public documents attached by the plaintiff. iii. PW-3 Mr. Suneet Puri, Vice President, Projects at of Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. On 18.01.2018 the defendant started broadcasting on various fora including its channel, website Bharatsamacharv.in as well as on “YouTube”, “Facebook”, “Twitter”, the defamatory report, wherein allegations wherein baseless made against The report states that the building plans of the project have not been sanctioned by the LDA and that the RERA Registration number of Experion Capital Project as stated on the RERA website and the building plan approval number as stated on the plaintiff’s website are different and cast aspersions on the approvals for the projects and documents relating to the registration of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s building plans have been approved by LDA on 12.01.2017 and ‘permit to construct’ number 41210 was given on 08.03.2017 on the said building plan approval. RERA registration number is UPRERAPRJ4224. Copy of demand letters of various charges dated 21.01.2017 issued by the LDA upon the plaintiff in respect of approval on 12.01.2017 have been attached. NOCs were appointed from various authorities such as UP Pollution Control Board, Electricity Distribution Division, Traffic Police and Fire Services Department to the LDA for the proposed Commercial cum Housing project of the plaintiff’s. LDA and RERA are different statutory authorities and follow different processes for approval. The RERA registration cannot be obtained until the building plans are approved by the LDA. Therefore the above contention that the LDA has not approved the building plans and the casting of aspers on the genuineness of the building plans displayed on the website of RERA and the plaintiff’s website on the ground that they bear a different number from RERA registration number are false. The project is situated in Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Tehsil and not in “Mohan Lal Ganj” Tehsil. The reference to “Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil” as the relevant tehsil for the project at the time of selecting the tehsil from the drop down menu of the online form in the online registration submission at the RERA website is erroneous. That the plaintiff doesn’t own any land in Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil and that the project of the plaintiff is located in Gomti Nagar which is made clear by the documents uploaded on the UPRERA website. The software by the LDA for generating its permit accepts only one single property number. Accordingly, only the first plot number i.e. TCG/1-A-V-6 shows in the permit. However, that the building plans approved by the LDA make it clear that both the plots TCG/1-A-V-6 and TCG/1-A-V-7 are included in the approval and that no fraud it being committed by the plaintiff.

(iv) PW-4, Mr. Vinay Narang Senior GM (Group) Corporate

Communications and Public Relations at Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd.: On 18.01.2018 started telecasting the defamatory report on its channel and various online fora. The title of the land vests with the plaintiff and that there is no pending litigation related to the title of the land unlike what is averred by the defendants, as the land comprising of two plots was purchased from M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd. vide registered sale deeds dt. 01.02.2008 and 09.04.2008 by the plaintiff as it was then known as “Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.”. Plaintiff has customers and employees including in Delhi who have seen the defamatory report and that the Plaintiff has many projects in Gurgaon and is heavily reliant on the persons residing in Delhi to sell such projects and due to the allegations cast by the defendant the Plaintiff has suffered significant loss of reputation and consequent losses as several customers have refused to deal with the Plaintiff. The plaintiff having a net worth of Rs.1,127.94 Crores has only claimed only nominal damages in the present Suit.

14. In support of its case, the plaintiff Company has filed the following documents: a) Registered Sale Deed dated January 18, 2008 wherein parcel of land TCG/1-A-V-7 was sold by LDA to M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd., Ex-C (colly) b) Registered Sale Deed dated February 01, 2008 wherein parcel of land TCG/1-A-V-7 was sold by M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd. to Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ex-C (colly) c) Registered Sale Deed dated March 20, 2008 wherein parcel of land TCG/1-A-V-6 was sold by LDA to M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd., Ex-C (colly) d) Registered Sale Deed dated April 09, 2008 wherein parcel of land TCG/1-A-V-6 was sold by M/s. A.N.S. Construction Ltd. to Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ex-C (colly) e) Fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated January 23, 2012 by which Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd is renamed as Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Ex-A) f) Copy of demand letter of various charges dated January 21, 2017 issued by LDA on plaintiff. (Ex-F) g) Copy of Permit to Construct, issued on March 08, 2017 with permit no.41210 given by LDA to plaintiff based on building plan approval. (Ex-G) h) Registration Certificate issued under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by UPRERA for five years commencing from December 01, 2017 to November 30, 2022. (Ex-D) i) A printed copy of a tweet from personal handle of Mr.Prabhu Singh vice Chairman LDA. (Ex-E) j) CD with defamatory report along with the transcript of the telecast dated January 18, 2018. (Ex-B) k) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for providing electronic record. l) Affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff to bring on record its consolidated financial statement (March, 2017) along with said financial statement.

15. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, Mr. Airi has drawn my attention to the order dated January 23, 2018, wherein the question of territorial jurisdiction was posed by this Court. Suffice it to state that the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present Suit stands settled by the said order. Furthermore, Mr. Airi submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the plaintiff has customers / prospective customers of its Projects and employees in Delhi who have viewed the defamatory report. He further submitted that the plaintiff has several Projects in Gurugram and is heavily reliant on the population residing in Delhi to sell / market its Projects, including the Experion Capital Project. Due to the allegation and aspersions cast by the defendant Company, the plaintiff Company as a corporate entity has suffered significant loss of reputation. He goes on to state that, the registered office of the plaintiff is situated in Delhi and the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit also rests with this Court since the defamatory report continues to be telecasted on various media, including to the viewers in Delhi.

16. Having noted the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Airi, suffice it to state that he is justified in referring to the judgment of this Court in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents and Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(OS) 1717/2007 dated March 04, 2009, (MANU/DE/0234/2009), wherein Para 6 and 7 reads as under: “6. The reliance placed by the defendant of Section 20 of CPC is misplaced and the suit of the plaintiff is covered under Section 19 of the CPC which reads as under: "19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable. 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. Illustrations (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi. (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi."

7. The above Section makes it abundantly clear that any suit for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed either within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or carrying on business or it may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff if the wrong done was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the event of publication of defamatory material, the wrong is done where the defamatory material is communicated and the moment the same is received by the persons, for whom it has been written. The publication of defamatory material against a person gives rise to a cause of action only when it is made known to the third party. The place of the third party and the place where it is known to a third party gains importance. The plaintiff may be living at any place. If publication of defamatory material against him is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in books, newspaper is published, through electronic media on TV and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. It is the choice of the plaintiff to file the suit either at the place where publication has been made or the place where the defendant resides. Since in case of telecasting of a feature on TV by the channel which is for Indian audience and has all India viewers, the plaintiff has a choice to file the suit at those places where the plaintiff has been hit the most. In the present case, the plaintiff was supplying milk to many organizations and institutions and marketing companies in Delhi. The business of the plaintiff was allegedly hit by broadcasting of such publication in Delhi. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff lies in Delhi and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (emphasis supplied). In T.N.Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. v. Dr. M. Karunanidhi, President of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and Ors. 1995(3) ALT 108, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had similar view and observed as under: "23. Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication. All the there defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. In the ordinary course of business the sending of books containing defamatory matter by post or otherwise from the place where it is published to book distributor of another place is publication of that matter at latter place, particularly/ when it is read by them and/ or others. Under these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the importance of the aforesaid book containing chapters 9 and 10 would have aroused the curiosity of at least the book-seller to go through it immediately on its receipt and, therefore, this type of communication amounts to publication at Madras. (emphasis supplied).

24. As noted above, the excerpts of chapters 9 and 10 of the aforesaid book in local newspapers is distinct publication. Much publicity was given for the sale of the book as is evident from the affidavits of the defendants. Therefore, a presumption regarding awareness of the contents of the concerned newspapers can be raised against all the defendants because out of these defendants only the concerned matter would have been passed on to the newspapers concerned and thus all of them, prima facie, appear to be responsible alike for the publication of the alleged defamatory news item in the local newspapers.”

17. In view of the judgment in Indian Potash Ltd. (supra), the plaintiff Company having registered office in Delhi and it being the case of the plaintiff Company that the defamatory report has been telecasted on national television channels available on various DTH platforms and websites/social media platforms such as bharatsamachartv.in, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc., which were accessed in Delhi and also noting the fact that the customers / prospective customers of plaintiff Company’s various Projects and other stakeholders have viewed the defamatory report in Delhi, it has to be held that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.

18. On the question whether the plaintiff company can sue for defamation, Mr. Airi has relied upon the Judgments of the Bombay High Court in the cases of Union Benefit Guarantee Co. Ltd. v. Thakoral P. Thakor and Ors., AIR 1936 BOM 114 and Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. Jagmohan Mundhara and Ors., AIR 1985 BOM 229. Suffice it would be to state that it is the settled position of law that a company can sue for defamation. This is because a company may have reputation for good conduct of business. In this regard, I may reproduce paragraph 22 of the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. Ors. (supra), which reads as under:

19. Mr. Airi, in order to cement his contention that the report is in fact defamatory, has highlighted some of the following contents of the report: - (1) That the plaintiff is a thug builder. (2) The land on which the project has been launched was illegally acquired in collusion with politicians and is not recognized by Lucknow Development Authority and there are disputes with regard to title of land. (3) The building plan has not been sanctioned by Lucknow Development Authority. The RERA Registration Number on RERA Website and building plan approval numbers as stated on the plaintiff’s website are different. (4) The project is approved by RERA in Mohan Lal Ganj Tehsil, but the plaintiff has represented to public at large that the location of Experion Capital project is at Gomti Nagar.

20. As stated above, the plaintiff Company has given its explanation in rebuttal to each of the allegations in the report which I have already noted above. Additionally, it is noted that the witnesses have in their deposition also proved the case of the plaintiff Company. In fact, there was no cross-examination of those witnesses.

21. In substance, the plea of Mr. Airi is that allegations made against the plaintiff are false and misleading and has been aired without communicating / confirming with any of the representatives of the plaintiff Company.

22. In a suit for defamation, the plaintiff has to establish that the words are defamatory and that it has been published. It is also trite law that the defamatory words are presumed to be incorrect and therefore the defendant has to rebut the presumption by giving evidence of justification. Defendant has to show that the allegations are true. This the defendant can urge only by filing a written statement. In the present case, the defendant, though represented before this court on January 30, 2018 by Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv., remained absent thereafter, which resulted in an order of ex-parte. In the absence of written statement, the defendant has not been able to support the case set up by the plaintiff. In other words, the justification / defence of truth or fair comment is not available to the ex-parte defendant.

23. In SNM Abdi v. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta and Ors. AIR 2002 Gau 75, the Gauhati High Court held as under:-

24. So it follows that in the absence of any challenge / justification by the defendant, the report, which was telecasted on January 18, 2018, the transcript of which along with CD is exhibited as Ex.B, has to be held as defamatory. It is the case of the plaintiff Company that the report is malicious, devoid of any element of honesty and fair reporting and has caused severe injury, prejudice, loss of reputation etc. to the plaintiff Company. The question of reputation and how it is cherished by a person came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh v. Committee of Enquiry, AIR SC 714, wherein in para 24 and 25 the Supreme Court has held as under: "24.... The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient origin, and necessary to human society, as stated in Libel and Slander Section 4 and this right is within the constitutional guarantee of personal security as stated in Constitutional Law. Section 205, and a person may not be deprived of this right through falsehood and violence without liability for the injury as stated in libel and slander Section 4"

25. Having concluded that the telecast on January 18, 2018 is defamatory, the issue which needs to be decided is how much damages the plaintiff is entitled to. The plaintiff Company has prayed for an amount of Rs.2.25 Crores. The prayer sought is primarily in the nature of general damages to be paid to the plaintiff Company because of the impact of the impugned report.

26. Mr. Airi has relied upon the Judgment of this court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckit Benchiser India Ltd., ILR (2014) 2 Delhi 1288, which is a decision on appeal / cross-objection filed against the decree granting injunction and punitive damages. The Court with regard to the general damages, where the plaintiff is a company, in paragraph 61 has stated as under:

32. The Suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs as damages to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff within three months. If not paid within the time given, an interest @ 6.25% shall accrue on the said amount till payment. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. No costs. IA 1107/2018 In view of the decision in the Suit, the interim order dated January 30, 2018 is made absolute.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J