TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he counsel for the plaintiff stated that he wanted to file some judgments. Permitting written arguments to be filed on or before 5th January, 2017, orders on maintainability of the suit were reserved. 3. The plaintiff has since filed written arguments with copies of three judgments and which have been perused by me. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint (i) that the plaintiff is an approved "Training Partner" for the "Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana" (PMKVY), a Skill Certification Scheme launched by the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MOSDE), Government of India with an objective to enable a large number of Indian youth to take up industry-relevant skill training that will help them in securing a better livelihood; (ii) for achieving the goals enshrined under the PMKVY scheme, the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) was established by the Government of India in the year 2008 as non-profit public company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; subsequently on 8th June, 2011 NSDC was transformed into a Private Limited Company with representation from the MOSDE; (iii) that the plaintiff, as an affiliated training partner of the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trainee and credited to the current account of the training partner; (viii) that the plaintiff has established training centres in various Districts of India for training of students in the Job Role "Tea Plantation Worker"; (ix) that one such training centre was set-up by the plaintiff at Serispore Tea Estate, District Hailakandi, Assam; (x) that the defendant no.7 applied in the PMKVY and since did not have a savings bank account with the Bank of India, an account in the name of defendant no.7 was opened at Hailakandi branch, Assam of Bank of India and on 21st September, 2015 defendant No.7 was enrolled as a trainee at the Serispore Tea Estate Training Centre of the plaintiff; (xi) the defendant no.7 undertook training of 100 hours and her training ended on 26th October, 2015 and on evaluation of training she was declared "passed"; (xii) that in terms of PMKVY, NSDC on 4th August, 2016 credited Rs. 5,000/- in the bank account aforesaid of defendant no.7 and out of the same a sum of Rs. 4,500/- was automatically debited from the account of the defendant no.7 and credited in the current account of the plaintiff as the training fee; (xiii) the defendant no.7 however started making en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said article highlights that the defendant no.7 along with other 50 tea plantation workers were lured by the representatives of the plaintiff and the Manager of the tea estate for getting enrolled in a skill development programme in order to improve their productivity by assuring payment of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of loss of earning during the training programme; (xx) that the entire article seems to be a sinister design to defame the plaintiff and its Directors and to demean PMKVY; (xxi) that the actions of the defendants amount to defamatory libel and have tremendously damaged the good reputation and image of the plaintiff company in the eyes of public at large; (xxii) that since the publication and circulation of the impugned article the business associates of plaintiff and public at large have started ignoring/shunning the plaintiff and some have even started questioning the basic purpose of incorporation of the plaintiff; (xxiii) the plaintiff company's image and esteem has suffered tremendously; and, (xxiv) that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiff is situated at Delhi and working for gain in Delhi and implementing PMKVY in partnership with NSD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Pahwa informed that Rs. 5,000/- has been deposited in every trainee's account. As a result poor hard working tea garden worker had a big happiness in their mind. As per tea estate manager information Mili Kalindi went to Bank of India, Hailakandi branch with her passbook and manager BOI said that on August 4, Rs. 5,000/- was deposited in her account and that moment Rs. 4,500/- was debited from her account and transferred to Primero Skills account. Remaining Rs. 500 is remaining in Mili Kalindi's account. In the case it is mentioned when Mili asked BOI manager how without her sign the money of Rs. 4,500/- debited he did not have any answer. Further, Mili Kalindi on October 5th submitted an RTI and through that came to know how Rs. 4,500/- was transferred to Primero's account. RTI was submitted to BOI, Head Office and response came on November 4th in Hailakandi branch. Hailakandi Bank Manager informed Mili Kalindi through letter that on the day of submission of documents of bank accounts of all trainees, account debit contract was signed and also submitted for Rs. 4,500/-. As a result BOI manager transferred the money to Primero Skills account. Mili Kalindi did not find it difficu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Police officials as a news event. It was thus enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff as to how the actions of the defendants no.1 to 6 could be said to be defamatory of the plaintiff. It was further put to the counsel for the plaintiff that today's newspapers, at least in Delhi, daily have at least two full pages if not more devoted to filing of the cases in the Courts, orders thereon, happenings in the Court, lodging of complaints/FIRs and whether not the same constitute news events which public has a right to know and whether not the said right of the newspapers, their editors and publishers and of the public would be curtailed if it were to be held that no reporting as news could be made till the final order of the last Court. 8. It was further put to the counsel for the plaintiff, whether not the action of the plaintiff of, despite carrying on business in Assam where all the defendants are situated and where the newspaper in local dialect containing allegedly defamatory article was published, filing this suit far away in this Court was nothing but an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to shut up and stifle the defendants and to coerce the defendant no.7 to withdraw h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduction of the contents of the plaint save reliance towards the end being placed on (i) Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 592; (ii) Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603; and (iii) judgment dated 16th January, 2014 in CS(OS) No.102/2014 titled Swatanter Kumar Vs. The Indian Express Ltd. and copies whereof are annexed to the written arguments. 13. Having given further thought to the matter, I remain of the same view as on the day when the suit had come up for admission, that this suit does not deserve to be entertained and deserves to be thrown out at the threshold to save the defendants, who do not appear to be persons with much monetary means, from travelling to Delhi, engaging an Advocate, appearing and contesting this suit at Delhi. 14. My reasons therefor are as under:- (a) Supreme Court, in Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 473, concerned with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and while issuing guidelines/directions for supply of copy of FIR has inter alia directed that the copies of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt that though defamation is a good cause of action but even if the complaint to the Magistrate was defamatory still the complainant was entitled to protection from a suit for defamation and this protection was the absolute privilege accorded in the public interest to those who make statements to the Courts in the course of and in relation to judicial proceedings. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court also in Pedda Sanjivi Reddy Vs. Kondasari Koneri Reddi AIR 1926 Mad 521 held that the statements made to the police officer which could only be made with a view to their being repeated on oath before the Magistrate as well as statements in the petition presented to the Magistrate have been invested by the common law of England with absolute privilege which attaches not merely to the actual proceedings of any tribunal exercising judicial function, but to all preliminary steps which are in accordance with the cognised and reasonable procedure of such a tribunal. It was also held that the public policy which renders the protection of witnesses necessary for the administration of justice necessarily involves that which is a step towards, and is part of the administration of justice,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enforcing agency. It was further held that when an imputation has been made in a complaint made to the law enforcing agency with the belief that such agency would take criminal action against the persons against whom such imputations are made, the same provides a valid exception taking such act outside the scope of tort of defamation. It was held that the lodging of the complaint with the police could not be considered to be publication of a defamatory statement and that if any wrong is committed by lodging a false complaint with the police and thereby setting the criminal law in motion, it may amount to malicious prosecution for which action can be taken only after disposal of the criminal case, wherein a specific finding is given to that effect. (h) With respect to malicious prosecution also, I have in Gangadhar Padhy Vs. Prem Singh 211 (2014) DLT 104 relying on S.T. Sahib Vs. N. Hasan Ghani Sahib AIR 1957 Madras 646 held that action for malicious prosecution is not favoured in law and should be properly guarded and its true principles strictly adhered to, since public policy favours the exposure of a crime and it is highly desirable that those reasonably suspected of crime be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application for interim relief in a suit by a major supplier of milk and milk products to restrain a television channel from publishing and telecasting a programme purported to be an investigation into manufacturing of synthetic milk. It was the case of the plaintiff that the programme was created and aired to tarnish its image and reputation with the sole objective of sensationalism and to defame. Finding that there was no plea of conspiracy and the plea of malafides as set-forth to be lacking in material particulars qua the persons at whose behest the programme was being aired, interim injunction was denied holding that media being a zealous guardian of freedom of expression and speech, has a right to comment vigorously and fearlessly on matters of public interest and the efforts of the T.V. Channels in unearthing and bringing to the notice of public the menace of manufacturing of synthetic milk was a laudable measure for public good. (n) I may notice that similarly here, it is in public interest that it be investigated whether PMKVY is being misused to siphon off monies in the name of training, without any real benefit to the purported beneficiaries thereof. (o) This Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of that case interim injunction was granted. The same also is of no benefit to the plaintiff. The same is the position of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd supra. (r) Mention may lastly be made of my judgment in Veer Arjun Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bahori Lal 2013 SCC Online Del 5096 wherein following the aforesaid law it was held that reporting of contents of a complaint is privileged and does not invite a claim for defamation. (s) Supreme Court recently in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 was concerned with a challenge to the vires of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constituting defamation as defined therein as an offence, on the ground of the same being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Negativing the challenge, Supreme Court held (i) that while in a democracy, an individual has a right to criticize and dissent but his right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and he cannot defame another person as that would offend the victim's fundamental right to reputation which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and one fundamental right cannot be given higher status in comparison to the other and what is required is....