MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. v. SHILPA S. SHETTY

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 739

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. v. SHILPA S. SHETTY.pdf

Judgment text

MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. v. SHILPA S. SHETTY DECEMBER 12, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ. ] Defamation: Publication ofdefamatory articles in a magazine against afilm actress-Filing ofsuit by the actress for damages and injunction restraining publisher from publishing the articles-Single Judge of High Court granting interim injunction-Affirmed by Division Bench ofthe High Court- On appeal, Held: Interim ordergranting injunction continues to be operative-High Court to dispose ofthe suit at the earliest. Respondent-a film actress filed a suit for damages of Rs. 20 crorcs against the appellant-publishers ofa magazine on the ground that the articles published in the magazine were defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for injunction restraining the appellants from publishing such articles. Single Judge ofthe High Com1 granted interim injunction. The order was affirmed by the Division Bench ofthe High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Disposing ofthe appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The matter relates to an interim order and while granting leave, the prayer for grant ofinterim reliefwas refused b~ this Court. In other words, interim order passed by the Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench ofthe High Court continues to be operative. The High Court is requested to explore the possibility of early disposal ofthe suit pending before it. [Para 11] [741-F-G] 1. 2. No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. [Para 11] [741-G] CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 344 of ... 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 16. 7. 2001 ofthe High Court ofJudicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 128 of2001 in Notice of Motion No. 25 of 2001 in Suit No. 36 of 2001. E. C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala and Amit Kumar Shanna for the Appellants. S. K. Bhattacharya for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.

It appears that vide an interim order dated 12. 1. 2001, the High Court granted ad interim injunction and a Division Bench ofthe Bombay High Court refused to interfere. ~ T 3. A briefreference to the factual aspects would suffice: 4. The respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film actress of good standing. Certain articles were published in the magazine published by the appellants called 'Stardust'. Asuit for damages of Rs. 20 crores alleging that the articles are defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for injunction restraining the appellants from publishing defamatory articles was filed. Notice ofmotion for interim injunction was taken out.

Learned Single Judge was ofthe primafacie view that the articles deal with the personal life and are defamatory in nature and granted interim injunction The interim injunction reads as follows: "Therefore, as directed in the case ofIndian Express Newspapers (supra), a modified injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants from republishing the three articles and/or from writing and publishing any defamatory article in the nature of the three -. articles alleging that the plaintiffis having relationship with other actors or a married man, which will operate till the disposal of the suit. " MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. v. SHILPAS. SHETTY 741 [PASAYAT,J. ] i 5. The said order dated 12. 01. 2001, as noted above, was challenged ~ in appeal. ' 6. Before the Division Bench, the stand was that the interim injunction granted was beyond the prayer made in the notice ofmotion.

The High Court noted that in notice ofmotion, the prayer was in the following terms: "That pending the hearing and final disposal ofthe suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order and injunction restraining the defendants from in any way or manner carrying our defamatory, allegations and imputations in future against the plaintiff'. 7. The Division Bench was ofthe further viewthat the Learned Single Judge had not granted interim protection beyond what was prayed and was covered by the prayer. 8. The other stand before the Division Bench was that moment justification is pleaded, there can be no interim protection. This plea was also rejected stating that a person cannot be defamed by allowing such ... -I' publications in future. Justification shall be required to be established at the time ofhearing ofthe suit by leading evidence. 9. There were certain other stands relating to lack ofpleadings about the reputation and character.

The Division Bench found that also to be without substance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the Division Bench. Mr. Bhattacharye, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order. 11. We find that the matter relates to an interim order and while granting leave, the prayer for grant ofinterim reliefwas refused. In other words, interim order passed by learned Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench continues to be operative. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, we think it proper to dispose of the appeal without interference. We, however, request the High Court to -. explore the possibility ofearly disposal ofthe suit No. 36/2001 . .. 12. The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly. S. K. S. Appeal disposed of