Delhi High Court: The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) was preferred against the order dated 1-3-2024 passed by the Additional District Judge-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘ADJ’) whereby an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in an application filed by respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was granted, resultantly directing appellants to take down from their website an article dated 21-2-2024. Shalinder Kaur, J.*, opined that the ADJ had applied its mind to the case and satisfied himself that prima facie there was enough material to conclude for the purpose of granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, otherwise the entire purpose of filing the application would have been rendered infructuous. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and held that it did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the ADJ.
Background
Appellants 1 and 2 were companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’), which operated and functioned as media publication under the name of “Bloomberg”. Appellant 3 was the Editor, South Asia, and Middle East, of Appellant 1 and Appellants 4 and 5 were journalists of Appellant 1. Respondent was a company incorporated under the Act and was engaged in the business of media and entertainment.
On 21-2-2024, an article titled as “India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee” was published on the website of Appellants 1 and 2. Appellants contended that the Article was based on proper research and after confirmation of the contents thereunder from reliable resources and they had also approached respondent seeking quotes on the subject to which respondent had replied. Appellants submitted that this was a testament to the fact that appellants had approached respondent to maintain the standards of integrity and fair speech.
Appellants submitted that they had displayed honest journalism as their endeavour had been to publish factually correct Articles, which might be an irritant for some. The Article talked about status of the Zee-Sony merger and ongoing investigation carried out by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) qua respondent.
The ADJ granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in respondent’s favour. The ADJ submitted that Triple Test which was necessary for grant of injunctions in respondent’s favor and thus the Court passed ex-parte ad-interim injunction against appellants.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the present appeal was directed against the order dated 1-3-2024 in the terms of which a suit seeking declaration that the contents of Article titled “India Regulator Covers $241 Million accounting issue at Zee” published on www.bloomberg.com authored by Appellants 3 to 5 and published by Appellants 1 and 2 were defamatory and that permanent injunction against appellants might be granted.
The Court relied on Babu Ram Dharam Prakash v. Izuk Chemical Works, 2008 SCC Online Del 1734, wherein the Court referred to Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 726 and emphasized on the principles to be followed by the Appellate Court while considering the injunction order passed by the Court in the first instance.
The Court observed that the ADJ considered the grievance of respondent that the Article was defamatory and was published to malign and defame it with a pre-meditated and mala fide intention. The ADJ further considered the submission that Article impacted the economy of respondent. The contention was further considered that it directly pertained to the corporate governance and business operations of respondent and speculates the contents as true and that the Article made unsubstantiated claims and the claim that SEBI had unearthed large financial bungling, when in fact SEBI itself had not passed any order yet. Thus, the ADJ found that the Triple Test for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction was satisfied.
The Court opined that unless there was a grave urgency shown as to entertain an appeal against an ex-parte ad-interim order, an appeal was not maintainable either under Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC or under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against an ex-parte ad-interim order. Order XXXIX Rule 3, read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC, showed that in fact no appeal lies against an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court relied on Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein the Supreme Court held that it would not be appropriate for the Appellate Court to substitute its own discretion differently from the discretion exercised by the Court of first jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the ADJ had considered relevant factors for the purpose of grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Further, there was no final adjudication on the subject matter of the suit, which was at the threshold, and the ADJ was yet to hear appellants and dispose of the interim application. The Court opined that appellants had rushed to this Court without exploring the option of filing their reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and/or application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC for modification of the ex-parte ad-interim order.
The Court opined that the ADJ had applied its mind to the case and satisfied himself that prima facie there was enough material to conclude for the purpose of granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, otherwise the entire purpose of filing the application would have been rendered infructuous. Being conscious of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the CPC, the ADJ had fixed the next date of hearing as 26-3-2024 for deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and held that it did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the ADJ.
The Court held that the parties were at liberty to approach the Court of ADJ for an early hearing. The Court clarified that appellants had to comply with the directions of the ADJ vide order dated 1-3-2024 within three days from 14-3-2024.
[Bloomberg Television Production Services India (P) Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1796, decided on 14-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Shalinder Kaur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Rajiv Nayar, Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocates; Shiv Sapra, Samiron Borkataky, Rajat Gava, Ikshvaaku Marwah, Sanskriti Shrimali, Advocates
For the Respondent: Vijay Aggarwal, Senior Advocate; Naman Joshi, Tarun Singla, Sidhu, Aayushi Bansal, Raddharaman Rajoria, Advocates
