Defamation Cases

Equivalent Citation: 2010(1)ALD(Cri)575, 2010CriLJ2558 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Crl. Petn. No. 5429 of 2006 Decided On: 26.02.2010 Appellants: Ravi Prakash Vs. Respondent: J.C. Diwakar Reddy and Anr. Hon'ble Samudrala Govindarajulu, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Reghunandan, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: N. Ranga Reddy, Public Prosecutor Subject: Criminal Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 499, Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 500; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482 Cases Referred: K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0434/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 2206 : 1992 Cri LJ 3779; Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D. Bhagvandas 1986 Cri LJ 888; Prabhu Chawl land v. A.U. Sheriff MANU/KA/0078/1994 : 1995 Cri LJ 1922; S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan DasMANU/DE/0044/1982 : 1983 Cri LJ 777 Citing Reference: Judges/Coram:

Affirmed 3 Relied On 1

Disposition: Petition allowed Case Note: Criminal - Defamation - Suit for quashing of proceeding of defamation - Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 - When media people asked for comment on murder, Respondent expressed same to be unfortunate and condemned the same but Respondent was shocked and embarrassed to watch the TV Channel when the news reader was saying that Respondent rebuked the media in filthy language when details about murder were asked - Respondent filed case against Petitioner on ground that defamatory news item was telecast by News Channel which was under control of Petitioner - Hence, present petition for quashing of defamation proceeding - Whether Chief Executive Officer of News Channel can be prosecuted for defamation on ground that false imputations were made against Respondent in that news channel - Held, As there is no allegation that Petitioner had any participation in selection of the alleged defamatory news item in News Channel and in absence of any allegations of Mens rea the accused cannot be said to have prima facie committed offence of defamation - Criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability on the part of the employer, unless there is any special and specific provision in any statute touching criminal liability - petition allowed. ORDER Samudrala Govindarajulu, J. 1. This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 168 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri relating to offence punishable under Section 500, IPC. 2. The 1st respondent is the complainant in the lower Court. He was the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Endowments in Government of Andhra Pradesh at the relevant point of time. He hails from Tadipatri Taluq. On 18-3-2006 one Rejendranath Reddy of Velamkur village was murdered. On that day, the 1st respondent was at Ananthapur attending District Development Review meeting in his official capacity. It is alleged that when the

media people asked for his comment on the said murder, the complainant expressed the same to be unfortunate and condemned the same and that the complainant was shocked, confused, puzzled , perplexed and embarrassed to watch the news item telecast in TV. 9 News Channel when he watched the news reader saying that the complainant rebuked the media in filthy language when details about murder of T.D.P., leader were asked. It is further alleged that voice over artist stated that the T.D.P. leaders are alleging hands of J.C. Brothers behind the murder, that when media raised this with the complainant, he politely reacted in the first instance, that politeness did not stand some more time, that on confirmation about the media mikes and cameras are off, the complainant exhibited his real mind without knowing that camera of T.V.9 was still on. It is further alleged that words read by news reader and voice over artist of T.V.9 Channel to the effect that the complainant displayed his original character and real character; and that it lowered the dignity of the complainant and defamed him in the public. It is further alleged that in T.V. 9 News Channel, there was scroll telecast to the effect that the complainant commented that the media are not eating food and are eating grass and that they have no eligibility to speak those having stature of himself as wages of the media in the state are meagre, and that the complainant insulted the media. The complainant disputes truth of the said imputations. On those allegations, the complainant filed criminal case in the lower Court against the accused on the ground that the defamatory news item was telecast by T.V.-9 News Channel which is under control of the accused. The accused is described as Chief Executive Officer of T.V.-9. The question is whether Chief Executive Officer of a T.V.-9 News Channel can be prosecuted for defamation on the ground that false imputations were made against the complainant in that T.V. news channel. 3. At the same time, it should be noted that the complainant is alleging criminal defamation against the accused, as distinguished from civil defamation. In order to constitute offence of defamation under criminal law, Section 499, IPC contemplates "intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person" on the part of the accused. In the entire complaint, the complainant/1st respondent did not allege that the accused who is Chief Executive Officer of T.V.-9 channel telecast the news item or permitted to telecast the news item with such state of mind (Mens rea). Except as Chief Executive Officer of the T.V. news channel, the complainant did not allege any other connection for the accused with telecasting of this news item. It is not as if the accused was news reader or voice over artist or editor or news reporter in relation to this news item or the news bulletin in which this news item was telecast. In the absence of any such connection for the accused with this news item and in the absence of any such mens rea or state of mind for the accused in relation to this news item, simply because the accused happened to be Chief Executive Officer or Proprietor or Partner of Managing Director of the T.V. News Channel, no criminal case can lie against him for offence punishable under Section 500, IPC. 4. In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala MANU/SC/0434/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 2206 : 1992 Cri LJ 3779 the Supreme Court in respect of Print Media held that even Chief Editor of a news editor is not liable for prosecution if there is no allegation in the complaint involving the Chief Editor in commission of the crime and that for a Magistrate to take cognizance of

the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The Supreme Court observed:

No person should be tried without a prima facie case.

5. In Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D. Bhagvandas 1986 Cri LJ 888 this Court held that Chairman of the company publishing the news paper being neither the Printer nor the Editor nor Publisher of that news paper, could not be imputed with knowledge of contents in impugned articles published in that news paper and the therefore, proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there is no averment in the complaint that the alleged objectionable news item was telecast with knowledge of the accused of contents thereof. 6. In Prabhu Chawl land v. A.U. Sheriff MANU/KA/0078/1994 : 1995 Cri LJ 1922 the Karnataka High Court held that Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor cannot be prosecuted for offence of defamation when there are no allegations against them to the effect that they have any hand in selection of the alleged defamatory matter that was published in the news paper. 7. In S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan Das MANU/DE/0044/1982 : 1983 Cri LJ 777 the Delhi High Court held that Chairman of a company which owns and publishes a news paper can be held liable for publication of offending news item, only if. it is shown that he was some how concerned with publication of the defamatory news item and that he cannot be asked to answer charge of defamation merely because he happened to be Chairman of the company owning the news paper. 8. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, there is no allegation that the accused had any participation in selection of the alleged defamatory news item in T.V. 9 News Channel. In the absence of any allegations of Mens rea and in the absence of any factual participation in telecasting the impugned news item, the accused cannot be said to have prima facie committed offence of defamation on the sole ground that he is Chief Executive Officer of T.V.-9 news channel. Generally, the criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability on the part of the employer, unless there is any special and specific provision in any statute touching criminal liability. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 168 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP(Crl.) No. 1175/2007 Decided On: 14.12.2007 Appellants: Court on its Own Motion Vs. Respondent: State Hon'ble Dr. M.K. Sharma, C.J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. Judges/Coram:

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/plaintiff: S.S. Gandhi, amices Curiae, A.S. Chandhiok, Mahesh Chhibber and Amit Kumar, Advs. for Uma Khurana, Adv Sanjay Katyal, Adv Nidhi Guptaand Shailja Sinha, Advs Subject: Criminal Subject: Media and Communication Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Section 5, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - Section 20, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 Section 20(2); Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 - Rule 6 Cases Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540 Citing Referred:

Reference:

Discussed

Case Note: Media and Communication - Sting Operation - Section 5 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 - suo motu notice issued to government and police of Delhi - Issue related to conduct of sting operation by news channel showing a teacher involved in organized prostitution racket - Subsequent investigation revealed that whole sting operation was stage managed to frame the teacher - Incidents of fabricated sting operation by news channel should be controlled so that innocent persons are not harassed and right to privacy not infringed - Media should take steps to prohibit reporters from airing any program based on entrapment - Court approved regulatory code of conduct to control the producing or airing of any program based on entrapment Inducement - Entrapment of any person should not be permitted - No person should be induced to commit a crime by creating circumstances whereby weakness of person is played upon - It should be proved that the person had predisposition to commit the said criminal act - Responsibility and duty to be truthful and protection of right of others should be inherent in the right of freedom of media Ratio Decidendi: Court should not punish an individual for an alleged offence which is the outcome of any staged activity to induce the person to commit a crime JUDGMENT Mukundakam Sharma, C.J. 1. In todays age and world, the impact of media is far reaching. Electronic media as compared to print media has an added advantage because visuals have greater ramification and impact as it directly and immediately influences the mind of the viewer. With the growth of the number of News Channels and increasing popularity of "breaking news", electronic media has come to play a major role in stirring public opinion and consciousness. It is this potency to reach the public that entails that all the channels understand and realise the heavy responsibility that is thrust on them and that there is no case for possible misuse. Keeping in mind the role a responsible media can play in disseminating information and creating awareness among masses without crossing the limits that a civilised society would expect, we proceed to dispose of the present writ petition.

2. We came across a news item reported in the daily edition of Hindustan Times dated 7th September, 2007 in respect of a sting operation relating to one Ms. Uma Khurana. Prior to the said date, 'Live India' a Television News Channel aired a programme on 30th August, 2007 regarding the above-said sting operation conducted by them showing Ms. Uma Khurana, a teacher with a Delhi Government school, purportedly forcing a girl student into prostitution. Subsequent to the said telecast, aghast at the said act of the teacher, a crowd gathered at the school gate and started raising slogans demanding handing over of Ms. Uma Khurana to them. In the commotion and mayhem that followed some persons physically attacked Ms. Uma Khurana and even tore her clothes. Shocked by the aforesaid incident and consequent to public outcry the Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi first suspended Ms. Khurana and later dismissed her from service, in exercise of special powers vested in the Government. Police also sprung into action and started investigation. Later the aforementioned news item was published in the Hindustan Times which indicated that there was something more to the whole string operation than what met the eyes. In the aforesaid news item it was stated that the girl who had been shown as a student who was allegedly being forced into prostitution by Ms. Uma Khurana was neither a school girl nor a prostitute but a budding journalist eager to make a name in the media world. 3. Anguished at the news item published, which was preceded by violence and damage to property, we thought it fit to draw up proceedings on our own motion. After taking suo moto notice, we issued notices to the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Police. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok and Mr. S.S. Gandhi, Senior Advocates, were requested to assist the Court as amices Curiae in the matter. On receipt of notice, the Education Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Police entered appearance through their counsel. 4. Pursuant to the said notice, Mr. Madhup Tewari, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi Police, filed a status report on 10th September, 2007. In the status report it is stated that one Mr. Virender Kumar, who had some monetary dispute with Ms. Uma Khurana, in connivance with one Mr. Prakash Singh, hatched a plan to trap Ms. Uma Khurana in a stage-managed act of forcing girls into prostitution. It is stated that on Ms. Uma Khurana's refusal to arrange girls to be delivered to some customer, Mr. Prakash Singh roped in Ms. Rashmi Singh, who was known to him, to act as a school girl, who Ms. Uma Khurana would be delivering to some 'customer'. Mr. Virender Kumar and Mr. Prakash Singh filmed Ms. Rashmi Singh with Ms. Uma Khurana at a pre-planned place where Ms. Uma Khurana came to 'deliver' Ms. Rashmi Singh to some customer, as instructed by Mr. Virender Kumar. This whole stage managed episode was shown as a 'sting operation' by the news channel. Public outrage followed causing violence and damage to property. Ms. Uma Khurana was beaten up, her clothes torn and later on arrested. 5. The Additional Director (Administration) Department of Education, Government of Delhi also filed a status report which stated that pursuant to the sting operation shown by the channel, the media reports and the riot in front of the school premises, a committee was

constituted to view the CD supplied by the news channel and to submit a report. It is stated in the report that Vice Principal of the school has identified Ms. Uma Khurana in the film footage and also recognised her voice in the film. Pursuant to the report of the Committee, Ms. Uma Khurana has been dismissed from service and Additional Director of Education (Vigilance) has further referred the matter to Crime Branch of Delhi Police for investigation. Steps which the Directorate of Education has contemplated with a view to secure a safe environment for children and employees in schools have also been delineated in the report. 6. Mr. Madhup Tewari filed another status report on 12th September, 2007 wherein, in the penultimate paragraph, it is stated that the Additional Director, Education has been informed that Ms. Uma Khurana has not been found to be involved in any organized prostitution racket involving school girls as shown in the sting operation and that a part of the sting operation was stage managed. In another status report filed on 6th October, 2007 by Mr. Madhup Tewari, it is stated that voice samples of Uma Khurana, Rashmi Singh and Prakash Singh were recorded by expert at CFSL and has been placed with the CFSL for expert opinion. It is also stated that recording of the sting operation was done selectively and the investigation was still in progress. 7. Subsequently on completion of the investigation, Police has also submitted charge sheet in the case. It was made clear by the Delhi Police that no concrete evidence was found against Ms. Uma Khurana to support the allegations of child prostitution made against her. Consequently, name of Ms. Uma Khurana has been cleared as no evidence was found by the Police which indicates that Ms. Uma Khurana was in any manner not involved with the alleged prostitution racket as tried to be projected through the aforesaid sting operation. Ms. Rashmi Singh, who was shown with the accused in the sting operation, was charged with impersonation, criminal conspiracy and creating false evidence. Mr. Prakash Singh and Mr. Virender Kumar were also charged with similar accusations. 8. The aforesaid position clearly establishes the fact that an innocent person was being induced to commit a very heinous crime. Her reputation has been damaged in the eyes of the public and even her modesty was outraged in the sense that she was manhandled and her clothes were torn by some people. The sting operation has become a stinking experience for Ms. Uma Khurana as she has not only lost her reputation but also her job. The question is how the recurrence of such incident could be stopped and minimised so that an innocent person cannot be victimised and not made to lose reputation. 9. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India to the show cause notice issued by the said Ministry to Janmat TV-Live India , on 11th September, 2007. In the said show cause notice it was alleged that the telecast of the sting operation by the Janmat TV-Live India is defamatory, deliberate, containing false and suggestive innuendos and half truths. It is also indicated therein that as per Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 read with provisions of Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, no programme

can be transmitted/re-transmitted on any cable service which contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths. The said TV channel was further informed that it was bound to follow the Programme Code and Advertising Code which was not followed and in fact violated provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The said Channel was directed to show cause as to why action as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Cable Act should not be taken against them. On 19th September, 2007 an order was passed by the Director (Broadcast Content) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section20 of the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995. By the said order, transmission/re-transmission of JANMAT TV-Live India channel was prohibited with effect from 20th September, 2007 and ut po 20th October, 2007 through cable television networks and any other platform throughout the country. 10. Action has been taken by the Central Government against Janmat TV-Live India under the aforesaid Rules. Under the provisions of the Rule making power, Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 were enacted. 11. Section 5 of the aforesaid Act provides that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through cable service any programme unless the programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code. Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 prescribes a programme code that should be followed by any person responsible for transmission/re-transmission of any programme. The programme code is fairly exhaustive and stipulates that no programme which encourages and incites violence, maligns and slanders any individual and person, contain any false and half truths etc, should be carried and broadcast in a cable service. Section 20 of the said Act empowers the government to prohibit operation of any cable television network if it thinks it is necessary and expedient in public interest to do so, by a notification in the official gazette. Further, the Central Government can by an order regulate or prohibit transmission or retransmission of any programme which is not in conformity with the programme code. Additionally, power has been given to the Central Government to regulate and prohibit transmission or re-transmission by any channel of a programme if it is not in the interest of integrity and sovereignty of India, security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign State or public order, decency or morality. 12. Regulation of electronic media has always invoked sharp and divergent views with emotive and logical pleas and counter arguments. We are informed that the Ministry has invited suggestions from the general public including the media on a proposed Broadcasting Bill and Code of Conduct. A decision in this regard has to be taken by the government. But it cannot be denied that electronic media should and must protect innocent people so that their reputation cannot be sullied and damaged by false and incorrect depictions in the name of sting operation. 13. We have already referred to the fact that the Police after investigation could not collect any evidence against the alleged act of Ms. Uma Khurana. Police could not even find any evidence in support of the allegation made against Ms. Uma Khurana through the

sting operation by the aforesaid television news channel. In these circumstances there are enough grounds and material on which Ms. Uma Khurana could file an appropriate case for causing damage to her reputation and for the mental agony and physical hardship gone through by her. Damages in accordance with the law can be awarded by Courts in cases of defamation and loss of reputation. We leave it open to Ms. Uma Khurana to initiate appropriate proceedings, as advised in accordance with law for redressal of her grievances. 14. We were also informed that the Directorate of Education is reconsidering the matter with regard to her dismissal from service and Therefore that aspect is also left open by us to be taken up by the Government of NCT of Delhi and also by Ms. Uma Khurana in appropriate manner and appropriate forum. 15. Such incidents should not happen and false and fabricated sting operations directly infringing upon a persons right to privacy should not recur because of desire to earn more and to have higher TRP rating. Right to freedom of press is a valuable right but the right carries with it responsibility and duty to be truthful and to protect rights of others. 16. We have also come across an article titled "A tale in the sting", relating to the Uma Khurana incident, written by Ms. Barkha Dutt, Managing Editor of NDTV wherein she has referred to media reports/sting operations in the United States. Ms. Dutt in her article referred to reports of the American newspaper 'Chicago Sun Times' wherein Police officers were bribed by journalists to get a bar license. Police officers taking bribe were caught on hidden camera and later the sting operation was shown on TV. The said programme won many awards but not the Pulitzer prize because they could not agree on whether the methods used were honourable enough. After having referred to the said incident, Ms. Dutt observed:

This is, perhaps, what is at the heart of the matter. There is something unseemly and mildly sleazy about reporters playing Pied Pipers who lay out the cheese to seduce conmen into their rat traps. It is much easier to justify the use of a hidden camera when it is for capturing the event that would take place whether or not the camera was there. Entrapment somehow can't manage to shake off the suggestion of fabrication.
17. There is no doubt and there is no second opinion that truth is required to be shown to the public in public interest and the same can be shown whether in the nature of sting operation or otherwise but what we feel is that entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and should not be permitted. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on 6th April, 1992 titled Keith Jacobson v. United States reported in 503 US 540. In the said decision it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in their zeal to enforce law, law protectors must not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind a disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute. Where the government or their agents induce an individual to break the

law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, the prosecution must meet and answer by establishing and answering beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. The Supreme Court of the United States has also declared that law enforcement officials go too far when they implant in the mind of an innocent person a disposition to commit an offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute. The Court held in very unambiguous terms that the Government should not play on the weakness of an innocent party and beguile the party into committing a crime which the party otherwise would not have attempted. While artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those who are engaged in criminal enterprises, there would be a need to prove that the person in question had a predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies. The Government must not punish an individual "for an alleged offence which is the produce because of the creative activity of its own officials". Ratio of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States is in our considered opinion can be applied to the instant context also i.e. to the media. 18. Giving inducement to a person to commit an offence, which he is otherwise not likely and inclined to commit, so as to make the same part of the sting operation is deplorable and must be deprecated by all concerned including the media. Sting operations showing acts and facts as they are truly and actually happening may be necessary in public interest and as a tool for justice, but a hidden camera cannot be allowed to depict something which is not true, correct and is not happening but has happened because of inducement by entrapping a person. 19. The duty of the press as the fourth pillar of democracy is immense. It has great power and with it comes increasing amounts of responsibility. No doubt the media is well within its rightful domain when it seeks to use tools of investigative journalism to bring us face to face with the ugly underbelly of the society. However, it is not permissible for the media to entice and try to actively induce an individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not known and likely to commit. In such cases there is no predisposition. If one were to look into our mythology even a sage like Vishwamitra succumbed to the enchantment of "Maneka". It would be stating the obvious that the Media is not to test individuals by putting them through what one might call the "inducement test" and portray it as a scoop that has uncovered a hidden or concealed truth. In such cases the individual may as well claim that the person offering inducement is equally guilty and a party to the crime, that he/she is being accused of. This would infringe upon the individual's right to privacy. We believe and trust that all TV channels/Media shall take steps and prohibit its reporters from producing or airing any programme which is based on entrapment and which are fabricated, intrusive and sensitive. We also believe that responsible and senior TV journalists/reporters and editors who are involved in production and airing of programmes through electronic media should take steps for drawing up a self-regulatory code of conduct. The Press Council of India should also examine and can take initiative in this regard.

20. Certain proposed guidelines were also placed before us by the learned amices. The said proposed guidelines are as follows:

1. A channel proposing to telecast a sting operation shall obtain a certificate from the person who recorded or produced the same certifying that the operation is genuine to his knowledge. 2. There must be concurrent record in writing of the various stages of the sting operation. 3. Permission for telecasting a sting operation be obtained from a committee appointed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The said committee will be headed by a retired High Court Judge to be appointed by the Government in consultation with the High Court & two members, one of which should be a person not below the rank of Additional Secretary and the second one being the Additional Commissioner of Police. Permission to telecast sting operation will be granted by the committee after satisfying itself that it is in public interest to telecast the same. This safeguard is necessary since those who mount a sting operation themselves commit the offences of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretence and making a person commit an offence. 4. While the transcript of the recordings may be edited, the films and tapes themselves should not be edited. Both edited and unedited tapes be produced before the committee. 5. Sting operation shown on TV or published in print media should be scheduled with an awareness of the likely audience/reader in mind. Great care and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking or offending the audience. 6. All television channels must ensure compliance with the Certification Rules prescribed under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995 and the Rules made there under. 7. The Chief Editor of the channel shall be made responsible for self regulation and ensure that the programmes are consistent with the Rules and comply with all other legal and administrative requirements under various statutes in respect of content broadcast on the channel. 8. The subject matter of reports or current events shall not: (a) Deliberately present as true any unverified or inaccurate facts so as to avoid trial by media since a "man is innocent till proven guilty by law";

(b) Present facts and views in such a manner as is likely to mislead the public about their factual inaccuracy or veracity; (c) Mislead the public by mixing facts and fiction in such a manner that the public are unlikely to be able to distinguish between the two; (d) Present a distorted picture of reality by over-emphasizing or under-playing certain aspects that may trivialize or sensationalize the content; (e) Make public any activities or material relating to an individual's personal or private affairs or which invades an individual's privacy unless there is an identifiable large public interest; (f) Create public panic or unnecessary alarm which is likely to encourage or incite the public to crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public or religious feeling. 9. Broadcasters/Media shall observe general community standards of decency and civility in news content, taking particular care to protect the interest and sensitivities of children and general family viewing. 10. News should be reported with due accuracy. Accuracy requires the verification (to the fullest extent possible) and presentation of all facts that are necessary to understand a particular event or issue. 11. Infringement of privacy in a news based/related programme is a sensitive issue. Therefore, greater degree of responsibility should be exercised by the channels while telecasting any such programmes, as may be breaching privacy of individuals. 12. Channels must not use material relating to persons' personal or private affairs or which invades an individual's privacy unless there is identifiable larger public interest reason for the material to be broadcast or published.
21. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is already examining whether a statute and/or a code of conduct should be enacted. The above proposed guidelines should be considered by the concerned Ministry and if they find favor, they may be incorporated in the enactment/guidelines, with modifications as deemed fit and proper. 22. In terms of the aforesaid observations, we discharge the notices suo moto issued by us to the State. The petition stands disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CS (OS) 1137/2012 and I.A. No. 7579/2012 Decided On: 10.05.2012 Appellants: Nirmaljit Singh Narula Vs. Respondent: Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Hon'ble Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Judges/Coram:

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with Mr S.K. Maniktala, Mr A. Sarkar, Mr R.K. Chaudhary and Mr Varun Panta, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr Sidharth Chopra, Adv. for Defendants No. 1 & 2, Mr Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with Mr Rajiv Sarinand Mr Sooraj, Advs. for Defendants No. 8 and 9 Subject: Civil Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 1 Rule 10; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6 Rule 17; Constitution of India Case Note: Civil - Interim Protection - Present suit was filed for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for defamation against seven Defendants - An interim Application was also filed by Plaintiff for interim protection - Whether interim protection could be granted to Plaintiff in facts and circumstances of case - Held, in order to decide matter on merit, Defendants' defence must be available on record - But, it was also necessary to consider prayer for interim protection because, delay if any without striking balance at present stage and nature of

matter might prejudice case of either party - Therefore, some directions were necessary to be passed - Fair comments must be based on facts and must not contain imputation corrupt motives on person and it should be made on basis of all facts known to party concerned - 'defamatory' meant that if a person deliberately made a comment or published anything or by other means of any imputation against another person by which reputation of that person was likely to be injured in his profession or trade or by means thereof other third persons were likely to be induced to avoid him and damage result to person concern whom they were made, he had right of action - A party could not absolve himself in case he would intermingling of facts with possible expressions of opinion, unless words which were so pleaded perceived meaning were true or fair comment - In absence of defence available of Defendant, prayer made in interim Application could not be determined at present stage except that limited direction could be issued - Defendant No.8 was not allowed to instigate public by using of an offensive and defamatory attack against Plaintiff at its own without any cogent and clear facts and documentary proof JUDGMENT Manmohan Singh, J. 1. Mr Nirmaljit Singh Narula, plaintiff herein, filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages for Rs.50 crores for defamation against seven defendants, including, defendant No.1 Star India Pvt. Ltd., Mr Uday Shanker, CEO of defendant No.1, Mr Shrivardhan Trivedi and Ms Sumaira Khan, both Anchors of defendant No.1. When the suit and interim application were listed first time on 24.04.2012, summons and notice were issued to the defendants for 27.04.2012. 2. On 27.04.2012, Mr Saikrishna Rajagopal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, who informed the Court orally that it is the Media Contents and Communication Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., who was telecasting the news on the Star News Channel. Hence, the defendants No.1 and 2 were not necessary parties to the suit. He was granted time to file the affidavit in this regard and the matter was adjourned to 01.05.2012 for taking necessary steps by the plaintiff. 3. On 01.05.2012, the plaintiff's two applications, filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, were allowed and defendants No.8 and 9 were impleaded. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the amended memo of parties and plaint. Dasti summons and notice were issued to the said parties for 07.05.2012. On 07.05.2012, when the matter was listed, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, was pressing for interim protection immediately on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. On the other hand, Mr Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.8 and 9, sought time to file the written-statement and reply to the interim application. As Mr Lekhi was insisting for interim protection due to the nature of urgent matter, defendants No.8 and 9 were given two days' time to file short affidavit to put

their stand about the allegation made in the plaint before filing written statement and reply. Prayer for interim protection was strongly opposed by Mr Agnani. Counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 was pressing for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The said request was opposed by Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff. Service report for other defendants is still awaited. 4. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff against the Star News Channel as alleged in the plaint is that :-

(a) The plaintiff's teachings and preaching emphasize the values of true, selfless prayer and devotion to one's duties and guide his followers/devotees to abstain from, rather shun the path of 'mantra', 'tantra', or 'yantra', or in other words 'black magic' or 'tantric practices'. The plaintiff teaches his followers to spiritually evolve their lives by believing in the ultimate powers of the religion they follow. (b) The plaintiff started holding Holy Samagams (congregation) where the followers/devotees come to hear his spiritual discourses and seek his blessings. The workings and programs of the 'Darbar' and his discourses are telecast/advertised through various TV Channels (numbering over 35) in the name of "Third Eye of Nirmal Baba". Such programs are watched daily by about 10 million devotees/follower of the plaintiff and enjoy high TRP rating. During the week 1.4.2012 to 7.4.2012, the Program "Third Eye of Nirmal Baba" was most viewed program with rating of 9 out of the top eleven (most viewed) programs in Hindi speaking market. (c) The TV programs of the plaintiff ("Third Eye of Nirmal Baba") was also telecasted on various TV Channels of defendant No.1 such as the "Star News" and the Star Utsav. In fact, the said programs of the plaintiff have constantly been telecasted on Star News TV Channel of defendant No.1 over the last about 18 months. However, for the last few days, particularly, since April 2012, defendant No.1 started a sinister and malicious campaign on its Star News TV Channel to defame and malign the plaintiff in every possible manner. Since then, defendant No.1 has continuously and deliberately been relaying/telecasting programs defaming and ridiculing the plaintiff ('Nirmal Babaji'), the 'Nirmal Darbar' and his spiritual programs being aired in the name of the 'Third Eye of Nirmal Baba' by accusing the plaintiff guilty of a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. (d) That defendant No.1 by its scurrilous offensive, intimidatory, derogatory and malicious attack through its said programs, telecasts, inter alia, 'Sansani', 'Vishesh', Subah Fatafat, 24 Ghante reporter has been casting defamatory aspersions upon the character, ability and integrity of the plaintiff (Babaji) and the 'Nirmal Darbar'. This is nothing but a persistent and gross violation and misuse of the freedom of press and the freedom of the plaintiff enshrined under the Constitution of India.

5. In para 13 and part of para 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff has made the following statements:

13. The defendants in their tirade against the plaintiff have repeatedly accused him of wrong doing casting serious aspersions as to his integrity and honesty and character. He has repeatedly been called as a 'thug, fraud, and cheat. The defendants have in one of their telecasts stated "Aur puri tarah se thagi ki ja rahi hai". In another program, it has been stated by the defendants "iske vipreet job hi vyakti kaam karta hai vo thag hai.", "Pakhand karar kiya hai jo TV par karyakaram main dave kiye ja rahe hai jo tarike apnaiye ja rahe hai aur jinse yah tam bhara jar aha hai", "Nirmal Baba ek fraudy hai", "ye bahut hi fraud", "Iss prakaar ke babbey who humare desh ko loot rahe hain", "Nirmal jo kuch bhi kar raha hai wo theek nahi kar raha", "Baba vasatav mai logon ko kripa den eke bat kahae kart hag raha hai", "Yaani jo baba galat dhang se logon ko gumrah karke"..."logon ko bewkoof bana rahe hai"..."baba dharma ke naam par dhanda kar rahe hai", "baba jo kar rahe hain bho sida sida thagi hai,", "ham sida dhekha sakte hain ki kogon ko bhekbkhuf hi bana rahe hain", "baba vastava mein aam aadmin ko kirpa dene ki baat keh kar unko thag rahe hain", "Iss tarah ke tamaam baba hai iss tarah ki ghotaalebaaz dhokebaaz babao ke paas logon ko jaana nahin chahiye", "aise ghotaalebaaz baba desh mein dher saare hai". 15. The defendant have further used utter derogatory and defamatory expressions qua the plaintiff by stating "who thag hai" and that "Iske vipreet job he vayakti kam kar raha hai vo thag hai to us se bachna chahiye", and "television ko bhi karishme karamaato ka madhyam banana ki koshish ho rahi hai", and calling the plaintiff "ye ghotaalebaaz baba", "Mujhe lagta hai ki yeh aastha ke mandir mein apni dukan chala rahe hain" and "aur iss prakaar ke babey who humare desh ko loot rahe hain", and that "aise babaon ko Hindustan main vajud hi nahin hona chahiye"....
6. Following prayers are made in the interim application :

(a) Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 5 by themselves and their agents, officers, employees, partners, associates, servants, representatives, successors, attorneys and assignees etc. from telecasting, selling, leasing, licensing, writing, publishing, hosting, advertising, or in any other manner or form, any existing or future content that is defamatory about the plaintiff whether written by defendant No.1 or any other person on its TV Channel - 'Star News' and its Website (News Bullet. in) and/or other Channel/Website associated with the said defendant and any of their other print/electric media; (b) Pass an order of temporary injunction against defendant No.1 directing them and their agents, officers, employees, partners, associates, servants, representatives, successors, attorneys and assigns etc. to forthwith remove

defamatory and scurrilous articles, news items, video etc. posted, hosted, published by it on its Website (News Bullet. in) and associated websites; (c) Pass an order of temporary injunction directing defendant Nos.6 and 7 to block the defamatory Web pages written and/or published by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff from the Wtbsite - 'NewsBullet.in' of defendant No.1 and/or other associated Websites within India and, to the extent possible, abroad; (d) Pass ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above, and confirm the same after notice to defendants.
7. Plaintiff has given the details of some programs telecasted by the defendants in Star News Channel. Transcription is also filed on record in para 23 of the plaint. The plaintiff has also produced the details of Articles and news items which are available on the website. As per plaintiff, those are written and published in order to make unlawful earning through online by the said channel. It is argued by Mr Lekhi that the same is nothing but a hate speech which is instigating the public at large against the plaintiff without any cogent proof. The said Channel was/is making baseless, unfounded allegations in order to defame the plaintiff without any proof and without verifying the facts as it was holding a media trial thereby painting the plaintiff as a fraudster and cheat. 8. In support of his submission, Mr Lekhi, learned Senior counsel, has referred to various decisions and English Law Books on Torts and argued that till the time pleadings in the matter are complete, some interim protection is necessary, otherwise till the time, interim application is finally decided, the plaintiff would be totally ruined by the Star News Channel. 9. As mentioned earlier, defendants No.8 and 9 filed short affidavit of Sh. Ashok Venkatramani, Chief Executive Officer of defendant No.8. It is specifically mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit that impugned reports/programs telecasted on the Star News Channel contain true and verified information/facts confirmed by Star News correspondents/reporter through documentary sources and oral statement of concerned individuals and defendant No.8 will only represent true, correct and verified information about the plaintiff on the Star News Channel and continue to telecast after proper verification of information/facts without making unsubstantiated allegations. 10. Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of said defendants, has argued that they have full information, evidence, documents and source about the programs telecasted by the Channel. It was telecasted after verification. He also submits that before telecasting the said news, the plaintiff was given opportunity to give his clarification and comments but, he did not respond at all. He has handed over one set of documents in Court and asked for time to file the written statement and reply and documents so that full stand of defendant No.8 be placed on record.

11. In order to decide the matter on merit, it is true that the defendants' defence must be available on record. The defendants No.8 and 9 in the present case have only filed short affidavit in Court. But, no doubt, it is also necessary to consider the prayer for interim protection as the defendant No.8 is telecasting news about the plaintiff almost every day many times as appeared from record, the delay if any without striking the balance at this stage and nature of matter may prejudice the case of either party. Therefore, some directions are necessary to be passed. 12. It is settled position in law that the fair comments must be based on facts and must not contain imputation corrupt motives on the person and it should be made on the basis of all the facts known to the party concerned. Similarly, the 'defamatory' means that if a person deliberately makes a comment or publishes anything or by other means of any imputation against another person by which the reputation of that person is likely to be injured in his profession or trade or by means thereof other third persons are likely to be induced to avoid him and damage result to the person concern whom they are made, he has right of action. A party cannot absolve himself in case he will intermingling of facts with possible expressions of opinion, unless the words which are so pleaded perceived meaning are true or fair comment. 13. The defendant No.8 in paras 3 to 6 of its affidavit has made the following statements:

3) That the impugned reports/programs telecasted on the Star News Channel contain true and verified information/facts, confirmed by Star News Correspondents/Reporters through documentary sources and oral statements of concerned individuals. 4) That MCCS has disseminated the information/facts through the impugned reports/programs without making any direct accusation against the Plaintiff of its own. 5) That the impugned reports/programs also contain excerpts from the interviews/debates of prominent personalities carried out by Star News. 6) That as done previously, MCCS will only represent true, correct and verified information about the Plaintiff on the Star News Channel and continue to telecast the reports/interviews after proper verification of information/facts without making any unsubstantiated allegations.
14. As already mentioned that in the absence of defence available of the defendant, the prayer made in the interim application cannot be determined at this stage except that the limited direction can be issued in view of the statement made by the defendant no.8 in the affidavit to the effect that the defendant No.8 is entitled to telecast true, correct and verified information and news items including interviews in its channel and to upload articles about the plaintiff on its website. However, defendant No.8 is not allowed to instigate the public by using of an offensive and defamatory attack against the plaintiff at

its own without any cogent and clear facts and documentary proof. Written statement and reply be filed within three weeks with an advance copy to the plaintiff, who may file the replication and rejoinder three weeks thereafter. List on 09.07.2012.

Equivalent Citation: 2011(113)BOMLR3801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Civil Application No. 3994 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 1811 of 2011 Decided On: 28.09.2011 Appellants: Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Respondent: Parshuram Babaram Sawant Hon'ble B.H. Marlapalle & Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ. Judges/Coram:

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. I.M. Chagla, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.S. Doctori/by M/s. Kanga and Co. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Aspi Chinoy & Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.S.K. Sen i/by Mr. V.P. Sawant Subject: Civil Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41 Rules 1, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41 Rules 1(3), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41 Rules 5, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41 Rules 5(5) Cases Referred: Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr. vs. Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey and Ors.MANU/MH/0073/1970 : AIR 1970 Bom 424; Malwa Strips Private Ltd. vs. Jyoti LimitedMANU/SC/8489/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 426; Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Co. MANU/SC/0315/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 1 Supreme Court Judgment challenged vide MANU/SC/1350/2011 dated: 14.11.2011 Status:

Citing

Reference:

Discussed 1 Mentioned 2

Case Note: Civil - Execution of decree - Stay sought - Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Relief sought for stay to the operation and execution of the decree - Whether Applicants-Defendants be granted the said relief Held, Order 41 Rule 5(5), provides that a deposit or security is a condition precedent for an order by the Appellate Court staying the execution of the decree. Appellate Court has discretion to direct either deposit of the amount disputed in the appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being furnished which the Appellate Court may think fit. Execution of a money decree is not stayed ordinarily in as much as satisfaction of money decree does not amount to irreparable injury and in the event of the appeal being allowed, the remedy of restitution is always available to the successful party. Still the power is there, of course a discretionary power, and is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases. Hence, application allowed. Ratio Decidendi: Under Order 41 Rule 5(5), a deposit or security is a condition precedent for an order by the Appellate Court staying the execution of the decree. JUDGMENT 1. By this application, the applicants-defendants pray for stay to the operation and execution of the decree dated 26/4/2011 and under challenge in First Appeal No. 1811 of 2011, during the pendency of the said appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Rustom K. Karanjia and anr. vs. Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey and Ors.MANU/MH/0073/1970 : AIR 1970 Bom 424 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malwa Strips Private Ltd. vs. Jyoti Limited MANU/SC/8489/2008 :

(2009) 2 SCC 426 in support of his prayer for unconditional stay to the decree under challenge. As per Mr. Chagla, the scheme of Order 41 Rule 1(3) is directory in nature and not mandatory and it is, therefore, left to the discretion of this court that the impugned decree could be stayed without furnishing any security or without directing the deposit of any amount, if sufficient reasons have been made out by the appellants. It was submitted that the subject telecast of the plaintiff's photograph, per se, has not caused damage to the reputation, integrity, standing or character of the plaintiff and the photograph was telecast for 15 seconds without any repeat on the channel (Times Now) on 10/9/2008. It was also urged before us that it was a totally unintended inadvertence and at the earliest opportunity corrective steps, including writing a letter to the plaintiff, were taken. 3. Mr. Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff invited our attention to the provisions of Rule 1 and 5 of Order 41 of CPC and submitted that when it comes to granting stay to the execution of the decree, this court has the discretion only to direct deposit of the decretal amount or to direct furnishing security for the said amount. It was also submitted that Order 41 Rule 1 would operate when the appeal is admitted, but when it comes to granting stay to the decree under challenge, Rule 5 of Order 41 of CPC would come into play. 4. There is no doubt that in the case of Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court proceeded on the assumption that although the word "shall" has been used in Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code, the same is not mandatory in character and thus, may be read as directory. However, in the case of Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Co. MANU/SC/0315/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 1, the Supreme Court on the power of the Appellate Court to stay the decree in first appeal stated thus, "Order 41 Rule 1(3) CPC provides that in an appeal against a decree for payment of amount the appellant shall, within the time permitted by the appellate court, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the court may think fit. Under Order 41 Rule 5(5), a deposit or security, as abovesaid, is a condition precedent for an order by the appellate court staying the execution of the decree. A bare reading of the two provisions referred to hereinabove, shows a discretion having been conferred on the appellate court to direct either deposit of the amount disputed in the appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being furnished as the appellate court may think fit. Needless to say that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Ordinarily, execution of a money decree is not stayed inasmuch as satisfaction of money decree does not amount to irreparable injury and in the event of the appeal being allowed, the remedy of restitution is always available to the successful party. Still the power is there, of course a discretionary power, and is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases." 5. Mr. Chagla pointed out that in the first letter dated 15/9/2008, the plaintiff had claimed by way of compensatory damages an amount of Rs.50 crores and the said amount was increased in the subsequent letter dated 27/9/2008. The suit was filed for claiming damages of Rs.100 crores and the same has been allowed. It was further submitted that if the entire amount is directed to be deposited or the defendants are called upon to

furnish security for the said amount, their right to appeal is defeated and the appeal would remain pending for years together. Mr. Chagla, therefore, urged that this is a fit case to stay the decree unconditionally during the pendency of First Appeal No. 1811 of 2011. 6. In rebuttal, it has been pointed out that the suit telecast was on 10/9/2008 at about 6.30 p.m. The photograph of the plaintiff was displayed while telecasting news relating to the "Provident Fund Scam" allegedly involving some Judge of the Calcutta High Court. On the instructions of the plaintiff, his Secretary Mr. Kamat had called the channel between 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. on the same day. Despite this telephone call, the channel did not take any corrective / clarificatory steps. Nothing was done for another 4-5 days and on 15/9/2008 the plaintiff addressed a letter to the channel which was received on 18/9/2008 as has been proved in the evidence. The clarificatory telecast was done for the first time on 23/9/2008 i.e. after 5 days from the receipt of the letter of the plaintiff. Mr. Chinoy, therefore, submitted that the defendants' behaviour was nothing short of a reckless attitude and, therefore, no case has been made out to exercise the discretion to reduce the amount of deposit or security in any manner. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and the enunciations relied upon. We allow the application in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), subject to the condition that an amount of Rupees twenty crores is deposited by the applicantsdefendants with the Registry of this court within 6 (six) weeks from today and a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank for the remaining amount of Rupees eighty crores is furnished to the Registry of this court within a period of 10 (ten) weeks from today. The deposited amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit initially for a period of one year with a nationalised bank.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 29979/2011 Decided On: 14.11.2011 Appellants: Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Respondent: Parshuram Babaram Sawant Hon'ble G.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ. Subject: Civil Catch Words Mentioned IN Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Harish Kumar and Atul Singh, Advs. Judges/Coram:

N.

Salve,

Sr.

Adv., K.

Datta, Abhay

For Respondents/Defendant: Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv., Bindu Saxena, Neha Khattar,K.K. Patra, Anup J. Bhambhani, Nisha Bhambhani and Sumita Hazarika, Advs. Prior History / High Court Status: From the Judgement and Order Dated 28/09/2011 in CA No. 3994/2011 in FA No. 1811/2011 of The High Court of Bombay (MANU/MH/1377/2011) Disposition: Petition dismissed Case Note: Civil - Execution of decree - Stay sought - Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Relief sought for stay to the operation and execution of the decree which was allowed by the High Court of Bombay - Hence, present appeal. - Whether Defendants should be granted the said relief - Held, High Court did not commit any error by directing the petitioners to deposit a portion of amount specified in the decree passed by the Trial Court with a further direction to furnish Bank guarantee for the balance amount - Exercise of discretion by the High Court not to entertain the petitioners player for complete stay of the decree passed by the Trial Court is in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court for deciding an application like the one filed by the petitioners - Hence, petition dismissed. ORDER 1. This petition is directed against order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the operative portion of which reads thus:

We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and the enunciations relied upon. We allow the application in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b), subject to the condition that an amount of Rupees twenty crores is deposited by the applicants-Defendants with the Registry of this Court within 6 (six) weeks from today and a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank for the remaining amount of Rupees eighty crores is furnished to the Registry of this Court within a period of 10(ten) weeks from today. The deposited amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit initially for a period of one year with a nationalized bank.
2. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners argued that seriously debatable questions are required to be adjudicated by the High Court in the appeal filed by the Petitioners against the judgment of the trial Court and, therefore, there was no justification for issue of a direction to deposit rupees twenty crores and for furnishing bank guarantee of rupees eighty crores. 3. We have considered the argument of the learned Counsel in the light of the findings recorded by the trial Court and are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error by directing the Petitioners to deposit a portion of amount specified in the decree passed by the trial Court with a further direction to furnish Bank guarantee for the balance amount. The exercise of discretion by the High Court not to entertain the Petitioners' prayer for complete stay of the decree passed by the trial Court is in consonance with the principles laid down by this Court for deciding an application like the one filed by the Petitioners. 4. The special leave petition is "accordingly dismissed. 5. However, it is made "clear that the observations made in the impugned order and this order shall not influence final adjudication of the appeal. 6. The applications for intervention are disposed of as infructuous.