921-NMSL2760-15.

DOC

rt

Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

C
ou

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2760 OF 2015
IN

SUIT (L) NO. 1040 OF 2015

Plaintiffs
Defendant

ig
h

Tata Value Homes Ltd. & Anr.

Versus
Nityanand Sinha

ba
y

Mr. T. Cooper, with Ms. D. Mani, Ms. A. Nair & Mr. Surendheao,
i/b Indialaw, for the Plaintiffs.

om

PC:1.

CORAM:
DATED:

G.S. PATEL, J
8th October 2015

Heard Mr. Cooper for the Plaintiffs. Notice has been given to

the Defendant. An Affidavit of Service dated 8th October 2015 is

filed.
2.

This is action for damages in defamation. The Plaintiffs are

two companies in the Tata Group. The 1st Plaintiff is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Tata Housing Development Company
Limited. The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of various types
of housing and housing schemes as also other real estate

1 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

development projects across India, including in the National

rt

Capital Region of Delhi. The 2nd Plaintiff is a joint venture

C
ou

between a subsidiary of the 1st Plaintiff and one SAS Realtech. The

2nd Plaintiff is described, therefore, as a step-down subsidiary of

the 1st Plaintiff.
3.

The Defendant is an ex-employee of the 2nd Plaintiff. In

2014, the Defendant was a General Manager with the 2nd Plaintiff.

ig
h

He was stationed at Bahadurgarh, Haryana as Project Head of the

Plaintiffs New Haven Residential Project being undertaken there.
4.

On 16th June 2015, the Defendants services were

terminated. Although the Plaintiffs have set out the reasons for this
termination, I do not think these are germane for todays purposes.
If necessary, these will be considered at the final hearing of the

ba
y

Notice of Motion. It is sufficient to state that relations between the

Plaintiffs and the Defendant since that time have been very strained
and that there has been much acrimony at least on the part of the

om

Defendant. The Plaintiffs have had to file at least one police

complaint against the Defendant. According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendant has inundated various officials of the Plaintiffs with
emails complaining about his termination. The Defendant,
however, did not restrict his communications to the Plaintiffs but
also circulated emails to various journalists and representatives of
media houses. He also sent an email to one of the Plaintiffs
investors or financiers.
5.

In mid-August 2015 attempts were made at resolving these

disputes. It is not necessary at this stage to go into the details of

2 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

these. I find that there is annexed to the plaint a transcript of a

rt

telephone conversation said to have taken place between the

most unpleasant reading.
6.

C
ou

Plaintiffs external counsel and the Defendant. It makes for the

The Plaintiffs immediate concern is not only that Defendant

has continued to threaten the Plaintiffs and their officials and make

unreasonable monetary demands, in respect of which the Plaintiffs

ig
h

have adopted separate civil and criminal proceedings, but that the
Defendant has since 24th September 2015 been using social media
networks, specifically, Facebook and Twitter to make a number of

7.

allegations against the Plaintiffs. These are said to be defamatory.

Samples of the Defendants posts are annexed to the plaint at

Exhibits C1, C2, D1 and D2. I must note that for some

ba
y

reason some of these offending posts have been made by the

Defendant not only on his own Facebook page but also on the
Plaintiffs Facebook page and this is evident from the reproduction

om

which is found at Exhibits C1 and C2 to the Plaint. Exhibits

D1 and D2 are the Defendants tweets on his Twitter account.
8.

While it does seem that the Defendant does not have a

significant following or a readership of any consequence, I notice

that there are certain posts such on Facebook such as those
reproduced at pages 40, 41, 42, 43, 51 and 52 of the plaint that seem
to have been seen by third parties and received at least some form
of approbation. The Defendants tweets do not seem to have gained
much currency but I noticed that he has not merely posted these on
his own Twitter account but has tagged various news channels such

3 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

as Financial Express, NDTV India, Livemint, Economic Times,

rt

MoneyControl.com, Times Now, BBC, the Wall Street Journal and

C
ou

so on. The intention is quite clear and that is to give the widest

possible publicity to the Defendants posts. There is, therefore, no

question about the publication and dissemination of the Defendant.
9.

Mr. Cooper says that the posts are per se defamatory. He

draws attention to paragraphs 13 and 18 of the plaint in which it is

ig
h

pointed out that the Defendants allegations are inter alia of

unethical conduct by the Plaintiffs, allegations without, he says, a
shred of truth, and of innocent customers being fleeced, also
equally false. There is generally a denigration of the Plaintiffs and

of the Tata Group as a whole. There is, he says, nothing genuine

about these posts. They do not fall within the realm of fair
comment. They are defamatory and slanderous allegations, and

ba
y

arise from, and only from, the Defendants demonstrable

disgruntlement, disaffection and hostility. That the Defendant has
made a number of monetary demands that the Plaintiffs saw as

om

extortionate and did not accept is also evident from the annexures
to the plaint. There is, Mr. Cooper says, and I think rightly no
privilege of any sort that attaches to these posts so as to protect
them. Nothing in them can prima facie be said to be bona fide; on the
contrary, in his submission, malice is writ large on the face of the
posts.
10.

I am inclined to agree. This is no sense journalism or fair

reportage. The Plaintiffs are not a public body to be held to have to

prove a high standard of actual malice. I do not see how it is
possible to conclude that the Defendants posts meet a good faith

4 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

standard or can be said to have been made in the reasonable belief

rt

of their truth. They appear, prima facie, to be allegations levelled

C
ou

only to further a private agenda and a vendetta of some kind. That

is not protected, and if the Defendant labours under some delusion

that because his posts are on the Web they are somehow immune

from ordinary civil and criminal law, he is utterly in error. If the

Defendant intends to plead truth, then I would have expected his

11.

ig
h

posts to at least hint at it. They do not.

I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out at

least sufficient for the grant of ad-interim injunction. I have also no

doubt that the balance of convenience favours the Plaintiffs and

permitting the Defendant to continue posting will cause the

Plaintiffs irretrievable harm possibly to an extent that does not lend

ba
y

itself to easy monetary recompense.

12.

For these reasons, there will be an ad-interim injunction in

terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion, which

om

read thus:

(a) That pending the hearing and final

disposal of the present Suit, this Honble
Court be pleased to pass a temporary order
and injunction against the Defendant his
servant,
agents,
employee,
person
or
persons claiming through or under him to
forthwith
remove
all
the
scandalous
material
including
facebook
comments,
twitter posts, or any other comment(s)
against the Plaintiffs on the social media
platform and further be pleased to pass an
order of perpetual injunction restraining

5 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

the Defendant from issuing, disseminating,

circulating, communicating any defamatory,
malicious,
scandalous
statement(s),
allegations, insinuations, either written
or spoken, thereby amounting to libel, by
way of publication of the same, and/or
slander
against
the
Plaintiffs,
then
directors, principal officers,
agents,
representatives,
employees,
servants,
clients,
business associates,
business
partners, companies forming a part of the
Tata group of companies by way of emails,
letters,
SMSes,
social
media
posts,
websites, newspapers print or electronic,
or in any other manner whatsoever, to any
third parties/ general public including
but not limited to newspaper editors,
journalists,
clients,
business
associates/business
partners
of
the
Plaintiffs/Tata group of companies or any
other third parties/ general public;

rt

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

om

(b) Pending
the
hearing
and
final
disposal
of
the
present
Suit,
the
Defendant be restrained by an interim
order not to post, or promote any comments
already
posted,
by
way
of
publishing/writing/ posting, on any social
media, print media etc.;

13.

Affidavit in Reply to be filed and served on or before 26th

November 2015. Affidavit in Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and served

on or before 7th December 2015.

6 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::

921-NMSL2760-15.DOC

14.

List the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal on

C
ou

rt

23rd December 2015 at 3:00 pm.

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

om

ba
y

ig
h

CERTIFICATE
Certified to be a true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

7 of 7

::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2015

::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2015 20:10:23 :::