Bengaluru court on 13th February 2015, vacated a stay order applied by Latha Rajnikanth against 77 defendants including many print and visual Medias.
Mr. Subramaniyam Counsel for Mrs. Latha Rajnikanth, w/o Superstar Mr. Rajnikanth had filed an application with the court of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore requesting Injunction against The Times of India and 76 others.
The affidavit filed by the Counsel of Latha Rajnikanth had mentioned that she had received a letter from “The Publishers and Broadcasters Welfare Association of India” and it states as mentioned below:
“We act on behalf of all the media companies and concerns of India as they are our members. We act for their welfare and protection of their rights in the country. We also act as forwarding agency in respect of news feeds from various persons/entities and disburse it among our members.
One M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Limited, No. 781, 1st Floor Royala Towers, Anna Salai, Chindatripet, Opposite LIC Subway, Chennai – 6000 002 has written to us by alleging against you that they were cheated by you in connection with some financial transaction arising out of distribution of Kochadaiyaan cinema and has requested us to forward the news to all our media members.
We thought it wise to seek explanation from your good-self we could circulate the news contents and therefore, we request you to give us details pertaining to the said transaction and matter within 3 days, which would equip us better. Otherwise we shall presume that the allegation is correct and we would pass on the matter for publication.”
The affidavit had mentioned that one of the Defendant, Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Limited had made false allegation against Latha Rajnikanth and other Defendants may Air, Publish comments or reports or opinions or says or talks including written, spoken, visual impliedly to derogate, defame or assassinate the character of Latha Rajnikanth or her family members. It also added that wherein photograph of husband of Latha Rajnikanth was published with head note “cheating complaint against Rajani’s wife”.
The Honourable Judge Mr. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar, after going thoroughly with the affidavit filed by Subramaniyam the Counsel for Latha Rajnikanth issued an Interim Injunction on 2nd December 2014, in favour of Latha Rajnikanth and against 77 defendants from not Airing, Publishing comments or reports or opinions or says or talks including written, spoken, visual impliedly to derogate, defame or assassinate the character of Latha Rajnikanth or her family members returnable by 31st January 2015.
One of the defendants, Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Limited had appeared in the said court on 16th January 2015 and had filed an application, IA No.2 u/o.39 R.4 of C.P.C to vacate interim order granted against him and filed written statement to the case of the plaintiff. And on 19th January 2015, an another defendant, ETV Network put appearance through learned counsel also filed IA No.3 u/o.39 R.4 of C.P.C. and filed IA No.4 u/o.7 R.11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C and he filed objections to IA No.1 along with the list of documents and in view of the urgency pleaded by ETV Network and Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Limited respectively. The Honourable Court heard the arguments addressed on IA’s, confined to them since by then most of the defendants were not served with the process ordered by the court and on that day prefixed matter in so far them for return of process on 31.1.2015.
The other defendants MAA Television, Times Now, Dina Mani, Radio Mirchi put their appearance through their learned counsels, while learned counsel undertook to file vakalath for Times of India and ordered process to be served against other defendants returnable by 7th March 2015.
ETV Network submitted that ETV Network represents a group of satellite television channels and is not a legal entity which can be sue or be sued. It also stated that there cannot be a blanket injunction against media from publishing/disseminating/telecasting any news as it is opposed to the fundamental rights of media, guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of Constitution of India. It also stated that the Plaintiff Latha Rajnikanth would be at liberty to invoke law if and when she is defamed, but she has no right to seek a restraint order which has the effect of gagging the press. It prays that the injunction granted against media on the basis of vague, cryptic, obscure and ambiguous allegations would have far reaching consequences in a much as nothing can be published about or against public figures even in public interest and for public good. It added that the plaintiff Latha Rajnikanth would not be entitled for the relief of permanent injunction or temporary injunction. It also reads as “The continuation of injunction in the suit against defendant No. 26 ETV Network, would cause lot of hardship and irreparable loss and damages, is liable to be vacated”.
Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Limited, had also filed IA u/o.39 R.4 of C.P.C. to vacate interim order granted against him and submitted written statement contending that suit is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction (it should have been territorial jurisdiction), since plaintiff Latha Rajnikanth and her husband are normally residing at No.18/2, Raghava Veera Avenue, Poes Garden, Chennai as per their passport and IT documents. It also added that her celebrity status did not give her right to violate any law or breach any contract or escape any other liability. It added that she is denying business association with Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., in public making false allegations against their company. Ad Bureau blames that she gave false press statements that she has no connection with Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd. It also reads, “She wanted to stop defendant’s right of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19. Ad Bureau has written that comments about each and every politician is shown in the newspapers and no politicians wife has ever come with request to any Court like the present suit and the plaintiff Latha Rajnikanth has tried to mislead the Court to her inconvenient object with an intention to deceive the interest of others. Ad Bureau has mentioned that the newspapers and the electronic media are governed by the Press Rules and Regulations wherein they are responsible to publish the correct news and in case any persons news is published wrong the person can contact the particular newspaper and ask for clarification and Errata to be published.
Ad Bureau has accused that the plaintiff Latha Rajnikanth has given personal guarantee to them and has business connection with their company, has told blatant lies in the media that she has no business connection with Ad Bureau. Ad Bureau also added in in the letter that their company has not written letter dated 28th November 2014 to the defendant “The Publishers and Broadcasters Welfare Association of India” and states that the letter is created letter to suit the suit.
The Honourable Judge Mr. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar of IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bangalore, after looking into the documents produced by the defendants and listening to the arguments, has passed an order on 13th February 2015 vacating the Injunction order awarded earlier in favour of Latha Rajnikanth. The order has been passed as mentioned below:
(a)The plaint presented by plaintiff in O.S.No.9312/2014 dated 2.12.2014 is hereby returned to the plaintiff u/o.7 R.10 of C.P.C. to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
(b)Consequently, the interim order dated 2.12.2014 stands dissolved or vacated or discontinued.
