In the Court of Senior Civil Judge
Presiding Officer: K.A. NITHIN KISHORE
Civil Original Suit No. /2023
Ms. ABC,
R/o XYZ
…………………………………......Plaintiff
VERSUS
SINHA ROY
R/o CVT
…………………………………….Defendant
SUIT FOR DEFAMATION
Present:
Mr. Lohit, and Mr. Surya, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Ms. Rocahasni and Ms. Anagaha, Counsel for the Defendant
JUDGEMENT
1. The plaintiff Ms. ABC is an actress by profession who is residing at XYZ. The plaintiff is
well known actress by profession and has very good name in the film industry.
2. The Defendant Mr. Sinha Roy is a news reporter who works in CVS publications which a
well reputed publication firm in the society.
3. The plaintiff in the case brief has stated that the plaintiff had a press meet for a review of
a movie in which the plaintiff did a lead role in the particular movie, where the defendant
was also a part of the press as a reporter.
4. That in the press meet said that: “The statement which I am telling should not published
in any of the news paper or news channel”.
5. That plaintiff after giving the above instruction she made a gender equity statement
stating “Men get more salary than Women”.
6. The defendant made a record of the statement which was made by the plaintiff and the
same was published in the news channel. Due to which the plaintiff suffered loss of a
contract and loss reputation.
7. The defendant in the case brief has stated that the above stated facts are true.
8. That the publication done by him was completely unintentional.
9. That when the defendant gave the news which was to be published in the news was given
to the technical team where he clearly instructed that this particular part in the news is not
to be published in the news.
10. That the technical assistant who is responsible for editing such news articles had
negligently sent this for publication.
11. That the respondent got to know about the same after the news was published on the
news channel.
12. The issues raised were:
Whether there was defamation caused by the defendant against the plaintiff? Proved.
Whether the compensation asked by the Plaintiff is justifiable? Not Proved.
Whether the defendant is liable to pay the compensation by the Plaintiff? Proved
13. Issue-1: The Plaintiff has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has caused
defamation. The RW-1 in his statement clearly admitted in his examination in chief and
cross examination that it was due to their negligence in this incident.
14. Issue-2: The plaintiff has failed to prove that a relief of Rs. 10 Crore seeked is justifiable.
In the examination of PW-1 and PW-2: Mr. XCV, Accountant of the Plaintiff, has failed
to submit the records for such losses. The Court accepts the fact that the Plaintiff has
suffered losses but not the as much stated by the Plaintiff.
15. Issue-3: The Plaintiff has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent is liable to
pay compensation for the losses incurred by the Respondent.
Reliefs and Costs
16. After having all the issues determined this court passes the following order in favour of
the plaintiff:
The respondent has to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Crore to the plaintiff.
The respondent has to apologize to the plaintiff in the same news channel accepting his
mistake in the prime time.
The respondent has to bear the case expenses inclusive of the court fees and other
expenses.
Decree to be drawn as per the judgement.
