Suit for damages for defamation based on allegedly libellous e-mail circulated to multiple recipients — Jurisdiction challenged under Order VII Rule 10 CPC — Held, in defamation, “wrong is done” where defamatory material is communicated to and read by third parties — Place where effect of publication is felt confers jurisdiction — Plaintiff entitled to sue either where defendant resides/carries on business or where publication is read — Bengaluru Court had jurisdiction — Rejection of plaint declined.
[Paras 8–11]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 10 — Return of plaint — Scope
Application for return of plaint maintainable only when court clearly lacks territorial jurisdiction — Where two courts are competent under S.19 CPC, plaintiff’s choice cannot be termed illegal — Order refusing return of plaint upheld.
[Paras 7, 11–12]
Defamation — Publication — Meaning
Publication in defamation is not mere act of writing or sending — It is communication of defamatory content to at least one person other than plaintiff or defendant — E-mail copied to several recipients constitutes publication at places where recipients read it.
[Paras 8–10]
Cyber defamation — Internet/electronic communication — Jurisdiction — Limits
Accessibility of defamatory content everywhere does not confer jurisdiction everywhere — Jurisdiction confined to (i) place of defendant’s residence/business or (ii) place where defamatory content is actually read and reputation harmed — Doctrine of “libel tourism” to be avoided.
[Paras 9–10]
Precedent — Section 19 CPC — Interpretation
Principles laid down in Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani, Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents, Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia and G.I. Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Goomo Orbit approved and applied — Jurisdiction depends on place of communication and impact, not mere uploading/sending.
[Paras 9–10]
Supervisory jurisdiction — Articles 226 & 227 — Interference with interlocutory orders
High Court will not interfere where trial court’s order on jurisdiction is consistent with statutory provision and settled law — Petition dismissed.
[Paras 11–12]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The writ petition challenged an order rejecting I.A. No. II under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, by which the trial court refused to return the plaint in a suit for damages for defamation (libel) arising out of allegedly defamatory e-mails.
[Paras 1–3, 7]
2. Factual Matrix
The plaintiff, a former Director of the defendant-company, alleged that an e-mail sent by the defendant’s CEO accusing her of unethical conduct was defamatory. The e-mail was copied to multiple recipients, some located in Bengaluru and some in Ramanagara. The suit was instituted at Bengaluru.
[Paras 3, 6]
3. Objection to Jurisdiction
The defendant contended that:
the company was situated at Ramanagara,
communications originated from Ramanagara, and
therefore, only Ramanagara courts had jurisdiction.
An application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC sought return of the plaint.
[Paras 3–4, 7]
4. Statutory Framework — Section 19 CPC
The Court reproduced and analysed Section 19 CPC, emphasising that in suits for compensation for wrong to person (including defamation), jurisdiction lies:
where the wrong is done, or
where the defendant resides/carries on business,
at the plaintiff’s option.
[Para 8]
5. Meaning of “Wrong Done” in Defamation
Relying on authoritative precedents, the Court held that:
in defamation, the “wrong” is done by publication,
publication occurs when defamatory content is communicated to a third party, and
the place where such third party reads and understands the content is relevant for jurisdiction.
[Paras 8–10]
6. Cyber / Electronic Defamation
The Court harmonised earlier broad views with later restrictive reasoning, holding that:
mere internet accessibility everywhere does not confer universal jurisdiction,
jurisdiction must be confined to reasonable fora to prevent forum shopping, and
nevertheless, where e-mails are actually received and read by third parties within a court’s jurisdiction, that court is competent.
[Paras 9–10]
7. Application to Present Facts
Since the allegedly defamatory e-mail was:
copied to several persons at Bengaluru, and
capable of being read and understood there,
the plaintiff had a statutory choice to institute the suit either at Bengaluru or Ramanagara. The choice of Bengaluru was therefore lawful.
[Para 11]
8. Order VII Rule 10 — No Case for Return of Plaint
As the Bengaluru court did possess jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC, the trial court rightly rejected the application for return of plaint.
[Paras 11–12]
9. Final Holding
The writ petition was dismissed. The order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was upheld.
[Para 12]
Ratio Decidendi
In suits for defamation arising from electronic or cyber publication, territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC lies at the place where the defamatory communication is actually received and read by third parties, causing reputational harm, or where the defendant resides/carries on business. Where more than one court is competent, the plaintiff’s choice of forum cannot be interfered with under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment