Facts
- The plaintiff is a prominent businessman and industrialist of Bombay. At the time of the suit he was a partner in a firm which had been carrying on the business of Managing Agents of four textile mills.
- He was a Director of the Bank of India and of several other wellknown companies. He was also the Chairman of the Textile Control Board which has been set up by the Government during the last World War. He was also the Chairman of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation
- An article published in the English Weekly “Blitz” in its issue of 24th September 1960. The plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 3,00,000/− as general damages and prayed for an injunction
- The Report of the Press Commission part 1 1954
- “Standards and performance.
it sternly condemned Yellow Journalism (paragraph929) ‘Sensationalism’ (Paragraph 931) and Malicious and irresponsible, attacks (paragraph 936) even when such attacks had been made on the plea that the newspapers wanted to expose evil in high places.
Principles
Plaintiff
- the allegations and imputations made in that Article along with the
several innuendoes set out in detail in the plaint were false and malicious, and as a result of the same, the plaintiff was injured in his character, credit and reputation and in the way of his business and had been brought into the public hatred, contempt and ridicule.
- , he had suffered damages which he assessed at Rs. 3,00,000/−
- prepare a series of articles “because his mind was made up to expose the plaintiff”. All this shows that the reason for writing this Article was not mere public interest.
Defendant
- The principal defenses offered were
- (i) justification
- (ii) fair comment on a matter of public interest; and
- (iii) qualified privilege.
- the defendants honestly and without any indirect or improper motive and for general welfare of society published the said Article as it was the duty as Journalists to do and believing the allegations contained in the said article to be true.
- It was also contended that the damages claimed were excessive and disproportionate
Ratio
- Having, therefore given our careful consideration to the article and the aspect of malice put before us by learned counsel for the plaintiff we are satisfied that the whole article was conceived in express malice and therefore, no qualified privilege can at all be claimed.
In the result, the appeal is partially allowed, the decree of the trial Court is confirmed with the only modification that for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/−, Rs.1,50,000/− will be substituted
