Headlines
SC notice to Tata Trusts' ex-managing trustee in defamation case
New Delhi, July 4
This is "nothing but a corporate war", said the Supreme Court on Thursday issuing a notice, seeking the response of R. Venkataramanan, former Managing Trustee of Tata Trusts, in connection with a defamation case filed against him by Shapoorji Pallonji Group.
The apex court bench was hearing Shapoorji Pallonji Group's petition challenging a March order by the Bombay High Court that quashed Venkataramanan's prosecution.
A Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate court had in October 2018 ordered for Venkataramanan's prosecution based on a complaint filed by the Pallonji Group.
In September last year, the Pallonji Group had filed the complaint alleging that a press note issued by Venkataramanan on May 30, 2018 was defamatory as it contained "false", "frivolous" and "baseless information" against the company.
In his prosecution order, the Metropolitan Magistrate stated that the allegation against Venkataramanan and his press note came within the ambit of defamation as per Section 499 explanations 2 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the High Court opined to the contrary, and stated that the usage of words in the press release could not be considered defamatory.
The High Court observed that the words were "moderate and temperate", and it doesn't appear they "invite contempt, ridicule or hatred against the persons mentioned in the press note and much less the complainant."
The Group's petition to the top court contended that the High Court, without a trial, held that the statement was not defamatory, even though the statement caused irreparable damage to its reputation.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the Pallonji Group in the Supreme Court, argued that a strong case had been made out against Venkataramanan.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, observed that the case against Venkataramanan appeared to be "nothing but a corporate war", which has come to the court.
After hearing the initial arguments, the apex court decided to issue a notice, seeking a response from Venkataramanan.
Reportedly, Venkataramanan, in his response earlier to the complaint, had contended that a defamation complaint can be filed only by an aggrieved person and not by a company.
The apex court bench was hearing Shapoorji Pallonji Group's petition challenging a March order by the Bombay High Court that quashed Venkataramanan's prosecution.
A Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate court had in October 2018 ordered for Venkataramanan's prosecution based on a complaint filed by the Pallonji Group.
In September last year, the Pallonji Group had filed the complaint alleging that a press note issued by Venkataramanan on May 30, 2018 was defamatory as it contained "false", "frivolous" and "baseless information" against the company.
In his prosecution order, the Metropolitan Magistrate stated that the allegation against Venkataramanan and his press note came within the ambit of defamation as per Section 499 explanations 2 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the High Court opined to the contrary, and stated that the usage of words in the press release could not be considered defamatory.
The High Court observed that the words were "moderate and temperate", and it doesn't appear they "invite contempt, ridicule or hatred against the persons mentioned in the press note and much less the complainant."
The Group's petition to the top court contended that the High Court, without a trial, held that the statement was not defamatory, even though the statement caused irreparable damage to its reputation.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the Pallonji Group in the Supreme Court, argued that a strong case had been made out against Venkataramanan.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, observed that the case against Venkataramanan appeared to be "nothing but a corporate war", which has come to the court.
After hearing the initial arguments, the apex court decided to issue a notice, seeking a response from Venkataramanan.
Reportedly, Venkataramanan, in his response earlier to the complaint, had contended that a defamation complaint can be filed only by an aggrieved person and not by a company.
17 hours ago
President Droupadi Murmu begins her State-visit to Angola
17 hours ago
"Take from the BIG, BAD insurance companies, give it to the people," Trump urges Senate Republicans to abolish Obamacare
17 hours ago
The Third Eye: Trump’s strategy of maintaining America as economic superpower
17 hours ago
Impact felt across US as Republican-Democrat standoff on government funding drags on
17 hours ago
Telangana Cyber Security Bureau nabs 81 fraudsters in multi-state operation
17 hours ago
All are welcome in Sangh as sons of Bharat Mata: Mohan Bhagwat on Muslims in RSS
17 hours ago
Tejashwi celebrates 36th birthday during rally in Bihar's Karakat
17 hours ago
Wish for bright future for residents of Uttarakhand: Prez Murmu on state's 25th foundation day
17 hours ago
Goldman Sachs upgrades India to 'Overweight', sees Nifty at 29,000 by 2026
17 hours ago
Two killed as speeding car plunges into MP's Katni lake
17 hours ago
Pakistan forced to step back as conflict with Afghanistan proves too costly
17 hours ago
Tejas, Rafale sparkle at IAF flypast over Brahmaputra
18 hours ago
Devbhoomi Uttarakhand is heartbeat of India's spiritual life: PM Modi
