Rajesh Bothra vs 4PM News Network Private Limited & Ors.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J. (ORAL)

place the video containing defamatory content through electronic means)

The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing transcripts of the video containing defamatory content uploaded by defendant no. 1 on YouTube, as well as, permission to file pen drive containing defamatory video on record.

During the pendency of the suit, the transcript of the offending video has been filed on 16.08.2024 and the same is taken on record. Therefore, the prayer seeking 10 days time to file the transcript has been rendered infructuous.

In so far as the other prayer is concerned, for the reasons stated in the application, the Registry is directed to take on record the pen drive.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 36668/2024 (by the plaintiff under Section 151 seeking exemption from filing English translations of the Hindi articles as well as true typed copies of the dim, illegible documents / defamatory articles / publications / images uploaded by defendants)

For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is granted two weeks time to file the English translations of the Hindi articles, as well as, true typed of the dim, illegible documents / defamatory articles / publications / images uploaded by defendants.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 36669/2024 (by plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing original, notarized / apostilled affidavits along with the suit and applications)

This is an application seeking exemption from filing original documents. Original documents shall be produced / filed, if sought, strictly as per the DHC (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 36670/2024 (by the plaintiff under Section 149 CPC seeking extension of time in filing requisite court fees)

For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is allowed two weeks of file the balance court fees.

The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 36671/2024 (by the plaintiff under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption in filing affidavit under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)

For the reasons stated in the application, plaintiff is granted two weeks time to file requisite affidavits in terms of Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The application stands disposed of.

The plaint be registered as a suit.

The learned counsel for the defendant nos. 3 and 5, have appeared on advance notice.

The learned counsel for defendant no. 3 accepts summons on behalf of the said defendant and waives the service of formal summons. She submits that the defendant no. 3 has received a copy each of the plaint, IAs and documents. Let written statement be filed by the defendant no. 3 within a period of thirty days. The defendant no. 3 shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 5 submits that neither there are any allegations against the defendant no. 5 nor any relief has been sought against the said defendant. He submits that the grievance of the plaintiff is that a defamatory news was also published by Jansatta.com which is owned by IE Online Media Services Private Limited. However, IE Online Media Services Private Limited has not been made party to the present suit. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, submits that the plaintiff has no objection to replace the existing defendant no. 5 with the IE Online Media Services Private Limited.

In view of the above, existing defendant no. 5, i.e. Indian Express Private Limited is replaced by IE Online Media Services Private Limited as defendant no. 5. Let amended memo of parties be filed within a period of two weeks.

Let summons be issued to other defendants on plaintiff filing amended memo of parties within a period of two weeks.

Summons shall indicate that the defendants will have to file written statements within thirty days. The defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission / denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty days after filing of the written statements. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.

It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings on 05.11.2024.

List before the Court on 27.11.2024.

I.A. 36666/2024 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim ex parte orders against the defendants)

The learned counsel for the defendant nos. 3 and 5, have appeared on advance notice.

The learned counsel for the defendant no. 3 accepts notice on behalf of the said defendant.

Issue notice to other defendants by all permissible modes on filing of amended memo of parties by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit praying, inter alia, for permanent and mandatory injunction, damages and declaration in respect of alleged false defamatory statements / materials published / transmitted / circulated by the defendants against the plaintiff and his family members.

It is the case of the plaintiff and so contended by Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is of Indian origin, who emigrated to Singapore with his family and was granted Singapore citizenship around 28.08.1997.

He submits that in 1992, the plaintiff joined Kobian Pte Limited, formerly known as M/s Kobian Singapore Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Kobian”), a company specializing in the manufacture and distribution of computer parts, components, accessories and other electronic items.

He submits that the plaintiff was the Director, Shareholder and the Chief Executive Officer of Kobian which has production facilities in India, China and Europe. The plaintiff is the driving force behind Kobian’s success which is not only attributable to his credentials but also his good reputation. The plaintiff has also been actively involved in the promotion of various social causes in Indonesia, Cambodia and his altruistic actions have been deeply recognized by various societies. The plaintiff’s professional achievement and involvement in various social causes has been a driving force behind his reputation, goodwill and market standing to which the defendants are causing irreparable loss and damage not only amongst his existing and prospective clientele but also to the general public at large.

Mr. Mehta submits that the defendant no. 1 is a private limited company having its registered office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The defendant no. 1 operates a Hindi News Channel by the name and style of “4PM News Network” (hereinafter referred to as “4PM News”) having its office at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. The defendant no. 2 viz. Mr. Sanjay Sharma is the Editor-in-Chief of 4PM News. The defendant no. 2 appears regularly in videos uploaded by the defendant no. 1 on its YouTube platform which has the handle by the name @4PM News Network and has around 6.02 million subscribers.

The defendant no. 3 is Google LLC and is the owner and operator of YouTube platform in India and other parts of the world.

The defendant no. 4 viz. Diligent Media Corporation Limited, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with a view to engage in the business of printing, publishing and distribution of newspaper. The defendant no. 4 established its presence in the print media business with the launch of Mumbai Edition of ‘DNA’ an English newspaper on 30.07.2005 and is engaged in the business of production, curation, creation, conversion and procurement of various forms of multimedia content i.e. digital news, videos, documentaries and photo stories. The defendant no. 4 had discontinued the printing division of its newspaper w.e.f. 10.10.2019, however, it continued the business of digital media.

He submits that the defendant no. 5 viz. Indian Express Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. The company is the owner and distributer of the local newspaper viz. ‘Jansatta’ and also provides online news coverage of the daily news items. The defendant no. 6 viz. TVN Digital Media Private Limited is a non government company and the owner of ‘The Vocal News’ which is an online news utility portal which provides news to the subscriber in the regional language. The defendant no. 7 viz. Zee Media Corporation Limited is one of the country’s largest news network with 14 news channels in 7 different languages touching more than 183 million viewers and 32 digital properties like zeenews.com. The defendant no. 8 viz. Indiadotcom Digital Private Limited is a digital media publishing company registering more than 1399 million page views per month. It also posts daily news items and reports on its web page ‘India.com’.

He submits that the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against defendant nos. 1 – 3 for uploading defamatory videographic content against the plaintiff on YouTube. The plaintiff is also aggrieved by defendant nos. 4 – 8 for publishing wrong, defamatory and misleading articles against the plaintiff on their digital media platform.

It is his submission that the plaintiff came across the video which was uploaded by defendant no. 1 on its news channel on YouTube with the title “Hazaaron Karodon ki is thagi mei shaamil hain satta ke karibi” which translates to “close aids of the government are involved in this scam of thousands of crores of rupees”. The defendant no. 2 is the news reporter who has interviewed another individual in the video. The said video is 14 minutes and 19 seconds long. Upon playing the video, the plaintiff was shocked to find out that defendant no. 2 alongwith another individual was making baseless, false and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff about some alleged scam of taking a loan of Rs. 2,500 crores not backed by any collateral.

He submits that the plaintiff has neither availed any loan of Rs. 2,500 crores nor did he take any loan which was not backed by collateral. In fact, the loan taken by the plaintiff in Singapore was duly paid and settled with the bank. The settlement was also recorded and approved by the High Court of Singapore in Case No. HC/OA 9/2024. Thus, the impugned video / article is making baseless and unsubstantiated stories only to defame the plaintiff.

He further submits that in the starting one minute of the video itself, the defendant no. 2 has referred the plaintiff as a ‘thug’ i.e. conman who had allegedly taken a loan of around Rs. 2500 crores from the Singapore branch of Bank of India and has failed to repay the same. Thereafter, in the said video the defendant no. 2 introduced one individual viz. Vivek Rai as an Advocate who was invited to share details about the alleged scam carried out by the plaintiff. During the entire video, the defendant no. 2 and Mr. Vivek Rai have hurled baseless and direct allegations against not just the plaintiff but towards his family as well. They have put photographs of the plaintiff and his family without any proper authorization or permission in violation of their constitutional rights.

Mr. Mehta submits that in the said video it has been alleged that the plaintiff has created several shell and bogus companies in the name of his drivers, neighbours, employees etc. in order to avail loan facilities from the banks. The plaintiff has also got these companies declared as insolvent and in connivance with the top management of the banks coupled with the support of certain political leaders situated in New Delhi, he has settled his loan amount of Rs. 2,500 crores for a mere payment of Rs. 150 crores. The defendant no. 2 has further referred the plaintiff as ‘maha thug’ and has labeled the political leaders of the ruling government as dishonest and fraudulent. Moreover, the defendant no. 2 without any reason refers to the plaintiff as an absconder and compares him to Mr. Vijay Mallya and further states that the plaintiff is a ‘bada khiladi’ and has duped the Indian taxpayers of crores of rupees like Mr. Vijay Mallya. The defendant no. 2 has further associated the plaintiff with remarks such as “desh ka hazaro crore lekr sham ko Vijay Mallya ke sath cheers”. Thereafter, the defendant no. 2 has also referred the plaintiff as “Natwarlal” which is in reference to a Hindi movie titled Mr. Natwarlal which is loosely based on the life of a conman.

Mr. Mehta submits that after going through that video, the plaintiff contacted his lawyer to conduct a thorough search in order to ascertain the intent behind such allegations. During inspection by the plaintiff’s lawyer, it was found that there was a complaint case filed against the plaintiff titled as Ajai Kumar vs Rajesh Bothra and 13 others, Criminal Case No. 375 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow, under Section 190 of Cr.P.C with the prayer to register FIR against the plaintiff and other persons under Sections 406, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, and 120 B of IPC read with Sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 2(y), 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

He submits that the person Ajai Kumar is himself an Advocate, who had filed the aforesaid complaint through his counsel Mr. Vivek Rai, who is the same person present in the video along with the defendant no. 2. The aforesaid complaint has been dismissed as being non-maintainable by the Court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.04.2024 which is prior to the date of the offending video. Mr. Mehta further submits that upon conducting further inspection of the Court files it was found that there is another case titled as Ajai Kumar vs Rajesh Bothra and Others bearing Criminal Case No. 2755 of 2024 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, District and Sessions Court, Lucknow which is apparently a complaint filed by the complainant Ajai Kumar through his counsel Mr. Vivek Rai against the plaintiff herein under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It was further observed during the inspection of case file that the aforesaid complaint had also been purportedly filed by the complainant Ajai Kumar on the basis of the information received by some whistleblower against the plaintiff.

He submits that as of now there is no order passed by the Lucknow Court ordering registration of FIR against the plaintiff. The police authorities themselves turned down the request of the complainant Ajai Kumar to register FIR against the plaintiff in absence of any prima facie case made out against the plaintiff.

Mr. Mehta submits that the conduct of Advocate Vivek Rai stating false statements goes to show that he himself was never directly privy to any information in respect of which he has made direct allegations against the plaintiff. In fact, while inspecting the court file, it is revealed that Ajai Kumar has himself pleaded that he had been provided with all the information by an “unnamed whistleblower”. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 have also taken recourse of the unwarranted and uncorroborated statements of Vivek Rai without verifying the source, which has caused grave harm and prejudice to the plaintiff’s image and reputation. He submits that as on 12.08.2024 (21:35 PM), the video has garnered over 1,21,362 views and 4500 likes by the public at large. It has also received 307 comments which will corroborate that there has been grave reputational damage to the plaintiff and his family.

He submits that the defendant No. 3 i.e. Google have allowed these articles/stories/blogs to be transmitted by not removing them from their search engines and by allowing them to be easily viewed and spread through their search engines. In fact, the search engines promptly show these false allegations once the name of the plaintiff is searched on the search engine.

Mr. Mehta submits that subsequent to the video being uploaded, several media outlets and online publishers, including defendant nos. 4-8 have published defamatory articles against the plaintiff reproducing the allegations made in the video uploaded by defendant no.1. Therefore, defendants have acted in complete disregard of law and falsely and maliciously made derogatory, defamatory, false and damaging statements on a public forum against not only the plaintiff but also the plaintiff’s family, with the clear and malafide intention to malign and degrade their reputation. Therefore, it has been inter alia prayed that an ex-parte ad interim injunction be passed against defendants to remove / delete the video / articles from their respective platforms.

The plaintiff has also filed a list containing the alleged defamatory URL links of videos, as well as, news articles vide diary No. 3244563/2024 on 23.08.2024. The list contains the URL links of a video on YouTube, as well as, of news articles which are uploaded / posted by entities which are not parties to the present lis for the reason that when the suit was filed, the plaintiff was not aware about the existence of those video and news articles. The same is taken on record.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

At the outset, it is imperative to state here that on the first date of hearing of the suit i.e. on 16.08.2024, it was informed to the Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his company has arrived at a settlement with its banker at Singapore and the settlement agreement shall be filed by the plaintiff’s counsel in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing.

In terms of order dated 16.08.2024, the plaintiff has handed over a sealed cover containing three documents i.e. (i) Letter issued by Bank of India dated 15.10.2020; (ii) Demand Notice issued by Maersk Trade Finance A/S (hereinafter referred to as “Maersk”) dated 20.10.2020; and (iii) Statement of Affairs of the plaintiff along with its filing proof before High Court of Singapore. The same is also taken on record.

The plaintiff has also filed his additional affidavit narrating the facts about the settlement arrived at by his company with Singapore bank.

I have perused the additional affidavit dated 20.08.2024 filed by the plaintiff. It has been stated in the affidavit that the settlement agreement as referred in the order dated 16.08.2024 has actually been executed between all financial creditors of the plaintiff and his joint and several private trustees. The plaintiff is not privy to the said agreement as the same is confidential.

It has been further stated that the bank of India, Singapore branch vide letter dated 15.10.2020 had sanctioned trade finance facilities of US$10 million to Kobian wherein the plaintiff was a personal guarantor and this was the only credit facility availed by plaintiff / his entities from Bank of India, Singapore Branch. The total outstanding against the trade facility was US$ 8,475,534.55 (Rupees 68 crores approx).

It is also stated that Kobian had also entered into a trade finance facility agreement with one Maersk, a Denmark registered company. On 20.10.2020, the plaintiff received a statutory demand notice under Singapore’s Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, (Act 40 of 2018) demanding a payment of US$ 7,513,600.14 (Rs 60 crores) in his capacity as the Guarantor for the trade facility availed by Kobian. Due to inability of the plaintiff to comply with the statutory demand, Maersk initiated insolvency proceedings against the plaintiff on 10.12.2020. Vide order dated 25.02.2021, the High Court of Singapore passed a bankruptcy order against the plaintiff in Case No. HC/B 2640 of 2020 and appointed Mr. Patrick Bance and Mr. Jason Aleksander Kardachi as the joint and several private trustees of the plaintiff’s estate. Vide order dated 12.03.2021, Kobian was wound up by an order of High Court of Singapore and two joint and several liquidators were appointed.

It is further stated that in compliance with Singapore Insolvency Law, the plaintiff’s ‘statement of affairs’ was uploaded on the Ministry of Law’s website in Case No. HC/B 2640 of 2020. The statement of affairs contains a list of all the plaintiff’s assets as well as the debts due to all creditors. The statement of affairs includes a debt of US$ 8,692,619 due to Bank of India, Singapore Branch.

After detailed and thorough negotiations between the two joint and several trustees of the plaintiff’s estate as well as all creditors, a settlement agreement dated 15.12.2023 was executed. It is stated that the plaintiff is not privy to the terms of the settlement, however, the High Court of Singapore vide order dated 2024 has approved and sanctioned the settlement agreement between the two private trustees of the plaintiff’s estate and his creditors.

Subsequently, the Singapore police force has also issued a certificate of clearance dated 20.07.2024 to the plaintiff which states that the plaintiff does not have any criminal records in Singapore.

Having noted the contents of the additional affidavit, now it is to be examined whether the video uploaded by defendant no.1 on YouTube contains defamatory statements against the plaintiff or not.

I have watched the video by clicking on the link provided in PDF file of the suit and have perused the English translated version of the original transcript of the alleged video wherein the defendant no. 2 is seen to be having a panel discussion with a person viz. Vivek Rai. In their conversation, the defendant no. 2 is introducing Mr. Vivek Rai and stating that Mr. Vivek Rai has some incredible news about the plaintiff who has created a company and taken a loan of Rs. 2,500 crores from various banks including the Bank of India. In the video, the defendant no. 2 is stating that the plaintiff after receiving 2,500 crores from different banks has created fake companies in the names of his drivers, neighbours and employees. While calling upon Mr. Vivek Rai, the defendant no.2 further states that the viewers will hear the full story of the fraudster (plaintiff) from Mr. Vivek Rai. Thereafter, the defendant no. 2 and Mr. Vivek Rai started further conversing about the plaintiff and during their conversation largely the following allegations were made against the plaintiff:

I have also perused the screenshots of the news articles uploaded on defendant no.3 / Google by defendant nos. 4 to 8. Perusal of the same reveals that those articles also contain information that the plaintiff and his wife have been accused of orchestrating a massive financial fraud amounting to Rs. 12,000 crores. The articles further state that the accusations made against the plaintiff and his wife are based on a whistleblower’s report. However, no other corroborating information to back the allegations are provided in those articles.

Having gone through the transcript of the video, the contents of the news articles uploaded on Google / defendant no.3 and additional affidavit filed by the plaintiff, I am of the prima facie view that the accusations / allegations made against the plaintiff by the defendant no. 2 are per se defamatory and made to harm the reputation of the plaintiff and his company. The accusation / allegation made against the plaintiff does not seems to be based on true facts as in the video, this Court was not able to find that the allegations made against the plaintiff were based on any credible information. It has only been stated in the video by Mr. Vivek Rai that he has filed multiple cases against the plaintiff, as well as, written letters to PMO, ED Office and Senior CBI officials. Apart from this, there is no information which has been given in the video to show that the accusations/ allegations made against the plaintiff in the video as well as in the cases filed by him are backed by any evidence. Clearly, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have based the entire panel discussion on uncorroborated statements of Mr. Vivek Rai without verifying the same.

Incidentally, the criminal complaint case filed against the plaintiff having case no. 375/2024 before the Court of Sessions, Lucknow, is stated to have been dismissed as non-maintainable. Even a criminal case filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff seeking registration of FIR is pending consideration. It is not known as to what are the allegations / accusation made in the aforesaid criminal case against the plaintiff.

In the additional affidavit filed by the plaintiff on 20.08.2024 it has been stated that the total outstanding trade facility / loan taken by the plaintiff from the Bank of India, Singapore branch was Rs. 68 crores and thereafter the company of the plaintiff viz. Kobian has been wound up vide order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Singapore. Even settlement agreement dated 15.12.2023 is stated to have been executed between the two private trustees of the plaintiff’s estate as well as all creditors. The said settlement agreement is stated to have been approved and sanctioned by the High Court of Singapore vide order dated 16.02.2024. Moreover, the Singapore police force has also issued a certificate of clearance dated 20.07.2024 to the plaintiff wherein it is stated that the plaintiff has no criminal record prior to the date of issuance of certificate.

On an overall conspectus, it is prima facie clear that the insinuations made in the alleged video as well as in the news article are per se defamatory and made against the plaintiff and his company in order to malign their reputation before the public at large. The manner in which the defendant no. 2 has projected and portrayed the unsubstantiated facts and figures to call the plaintiff names, shows the intention of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is only to sensationalize the allegations to increase the viewership of the video, which cannot be countenanced at the cost of reputational damage to the plaintiff and his family. Thus, in the absence of any evidence to justify the allegations made in offending video by the defendant nos.1-2, the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim order in his favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss and injury, if an ad interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff is not granted.

In this regard, reference may also be advantageously made to recent decision of this Court in Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar^{11.2024 SCC OnLine Del 2704.}, wherein in the context of balancing the right of freedom of speech vis-a-vis right to have dignity and reputation, it has been held has under: -

Reference may also be had to the decision of this Court in the case of Amit Malviya vs. Samajwadi party Media^{22.CS(OS) 643/2024, decided on 16.08.2024.} , wherein this Court observed that an individual’s reputation is an integral part of his/her personality and cannot be unjustly tarnished under the guise of freedom of speech.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the defendant nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are directed to take down / remove / restrict access / block the below mentioned URLs which contain defamatory statements against the plaintiff within a period of two weeks in the following manner:

In the event the defendant nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 fail to take down / remove / restrict access / block the aforementioned URLs within the period of two weeks, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach and request the defendant no. 3 (Google), and the latter, in that eventuality, shall take down the URLs as mentioned in paragraph 68 above, within a period of 36 hours of such request.

Since some of the links containing defamatory statements have come to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after the filing of the present suit and as the entities which have posted the defamatory contents could not be made parties to the present lis, the defendant no. 3 / Google is directed to take down / remove / restrict access / block the below mentioned URLs within the period of two weeks:

Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be made within two weeks and compliance affidavit be filed within three days thereafter.

The observations made herein are prima facie for the consideration of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C by the plaintiff.

List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on

List before the Court on 27.11.2024.