Defamation — Civil damages — Allegedly defamatory emails and social-media posts — Truth and fair comment
Emails and Facebook posts sent by defendants alleging non-payment of dues by plaintiff-company — Evidence showed subsisting outstanding amounts payable by plaintiff — Plaintiff failed to plead or prove that allegations were false — Statements relating to recovery of genuine dues constitute truth / fair comment — Not defamatory.
[Paras 44–45, 47]
Defamation — Burden of proof — False imputation
In suit for damages for defamation, initial burden lies on plaintiff to establish falsity of statements and injury to reputation — Mere allegation of reputational loss insufficient — Where plaintiff fails to deny existence of dues, defamatory intent not made out.
[Paras 15, 44–47]
Defamation — Complaints and communications to clients — Actionability
Communications made by defendants to authorities and clients complaining of non-payment and alleged misconduct — When founded on grievance of unpaid dues and not shown to be false, such communications do not amount to actionable defamation.
[Paras 39–45]
Defamation — Defences — Truth and fair comment
Truth is a complete defence — Fair comment on matters arising from contractual disputes protected — Plaintiff must dislodge defence by proving falsity — Failure to do so fatal to claim.
[Paras 38, 44–45]
Evidence — Effect of defendants not filing written statement
Even where defendants fail to file written statement or cross-examine witnesses, plaintiff must independently discharge burden of proof — Non-traverse by defendants does not relieve plaintiff of obligation to prove falsity and defamation.
[Paras 47]
Defamation — Liability of multiple defendants — Proof against each
Vague allegation that one defendant “joined hands” with another — No specific defamatory act attributed — Claim against such defendant not maintainable.
[Para 46]
Appeal — Findings of fact — Interference
Single Judge’s findings based on pleadings, emails and admissions — No perversity or legal error — Appellate court declined interference — Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 44–48]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The appeal challenged the judgment dated 29-10-2018 dismissing the appellant-company’s suit seeking ₹3 crores as damages for alleged loss of reputation caused by emails and social-media posts issued by the respondents.
[Paras 1, 16]
2. Plaintiff’s Case
The appellant claimed that the respondents, who were engaged as coordinators under MoUs dated 12-03-2015 and 07-08-2015, circulated defamatory emails (notably dated 16-07-2016) and Facebook posts accusing the appellant of fraud, bribery and non-payment, resulting in loss of goodwill and business.
[Paras 2–9, 23]
3. Defence Stand
The respondents’ consistent stand, evident from emails and messages on record, was that substantial amounts (about ₹12–15 lakhs) were outstanding and unpaid, compelling them to raise grievances with authorities and clients.
[Paras 39–42]
4. Core Issue Before the Court
Whether the impugned emails and social-media posts amounted to false and defamatory imputations, or whether they were truthful grievances / fair comment regarding unpaid dues.
[Paras 23–24, 44]
5. Appreciation of Evidence
The Court closely examined:
the email dated 16-07-2016 addressed to NSDC and clients;
subsequent text messages exchanged between respondent No.1 and the appellant’s Director;
Facebook posts dated 10-08-2016 and 16-08-2016.
From these, the Court found that the consistent demand for payment of dues was evident and never specifically denied by the appellant in pleadings or evidence.
[Paras 39–44]
6. Failure to Prove Falsity
A decisive factor was that:
the appellant did not plead or prove that no amount was due;
reliance on MoU clauses (payment contingent on client payments) did not absolve appellant from establishing that the respondents’ assertions were false.
Hence, the basic requirement of falsity — essential to defamation — was not met.
[Paras 44–45, 47]
7. Application of Defamation Law
Relying on settled principles (truth, fair comment, privilege), the Court held that:
statements made to recover allegedly due amounts, if not shown to be false, are protected;
raising grievances, even in strong language, does not per se constitute defamation.
Accordingly, no actionable defamation was established.
[Paras 38, 44–45]
8. Claim Against Respondent No.2
The Court noted absence of specific allegations or evidence showing defamatory acts by respondent No.2. A bald plea of “joining hands” was insufficient to fasten liability.
[Para 46]
9. Effect of Non-filing of Written Statement
The Court rejected the argument that absence of written statement or cross-examination automatically entitled the plaintiff to a decree, reiterating that initial burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff.
[Para 47]
10. Final Decision
Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
[Para 48]
Ratio Decidendi
In a civil action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the impugned statements are false and defamatory. Where communications complaining of non-payment of dues are not shown to be false, and the plaintiff fails to deny the existence of such dues, the defences of truth and fair comment apply, and no damages for defamation can be awarded.
