Defamation — Libel — Corporate reputation
In a suit for damages for libel, the plaintiff must establish that the impugned statements are false, defamatory, and have the tendency to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or injure its trade, business, or goodwill.
[Paras: discussion following evidence; principles stated mid-judgment]
Defamation — Statements in legal / statutory proceedings
Allegations made in correspondence and proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 do not ipso facto constitute libel — Mere use of expressions such as “fraud” or “vested interest” in a legally recognised proceeding does not automatically amount to defamation.
[Paras dealing with RTI proceedings and evidence]
Defamation — Proof of injury to reputation — Burden of proof
Even in an undefended suit, the plaintiff must prove by cogent evidence that the alleged libellous statements caused injury to reputation or goodwill — Absence of proof of actual or probable damage is fatal to the claim.
[Paras on evidentiary burden; concluding findings]
Defamation — Corporate plaintiff — Evidence of loss
Where documentary evidence on record (annual reports) demonstrates continued prosperity and rise in turnover, allegation of reputational damage remains unsubstantiated — No presumption of damage arises merely from allegations.
[Paras referring to annual reports and turnover]
Civil Procedure — Undefended suit — Standard of proof
In an undefended suit, plaintiff is not absolved of the obligation to prove the case — Court must still be satisfied on evidence that cause of action is made out.
[Initial principles applied before dismissal]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Essential Ingredients of Libel
The Court reiterates classical principles of defamation law:
-
Libel consists of written statements exposing a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injuring reputation in trade or profession.
-
Test is whether the words would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, read as a whole and in their natural meaning.
The Court distinguishes libel from slander and emphasises that the distinction is real, not artificial.
B. Statements Made in Statutory / Legal Proceedings
A significant legal finding is that:
-
Statements made in RTI proceedings and related correspondence, even if harsh or accusatory, are part of a legally recognised process.
-
Such statements cannot automatically be branded as defamatory merely because they allege fraud or irregularity.
The Court implicitly recognises the need to balance freedom to ventilate grievances through lawful channels against protection of reputation.
C. Burden of Proving Reputational Damage
The judgment places strong emphasis on proof of injury:
-
Plaintiff must demonstrate how reputation or goodwill was actually affected.
-
Mere assertion that reputation “may be affected” is insufficient.
-
No witness evidence or documentary proof was produced to show that any third party’s perception of the plaintiff changed adversely.
D. Corporate Defamation and Financial Indicators
The Court relies on objective indicators:
-
Annual reports showed increasing turnover and commercial prosperity.
-
This directly undermined the claim that the company’s reputation or goodwill suffered.
Thus, financial performance evidence became decisive against the plaintiff.
E. Undefended Suit — No Automatic Decree
Despite non-appearance of defendants:
-
Court refused to decree the suit mechanically.
-
Reinforced principle that undefended does not mean unproved.
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)
-
Plaintiff Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd., a public sector undertaking, sued for ₹50 crores as damages for defamation.
-
Alleged defamatory letters were written by defendants in connection with:
-
Sale of non-performing land asset;
-
Complaints and appeals under the RTI Act, 2005;
-
Allegations of irregularity and fraud.
-
-
Defendants did not contest the suit.
-
Plaintiff relied mainly on correspondence and annual reports.
-
Evidence showed continued growth and profitability.
-
No evidence of actual reputational harm was adduced.
IV. FINAL HOLDING
-
Plaintiff failed to establish that statements constituted libel.
-
No proof of injury to reputation or goodwill.
-
Statements in RTI proceedings not per se defamatory.
-
Suit dismissed; no order as to costs.
Ratio (Concise)
Allegations made in statutory proceedings, without proof of reputational injury, do not constitute actionable libel; even in undefended defamation suits, strict proof of damage to reputation is mandatory.
