1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

(SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND DEFAMATION)

SUIT NO. OF 2016

DR. KIRIT J. SOMAIYA )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, having his )

office/residing at 9C, Neelam Nagar, Mulund )

(East), Mumbai – 400 081. ) … PLAINTIFF

Versus

1. DAINIK SAAMNA )

a Marathi Newspaper, having its office at )

Saamna Bhavan, Dainik Samna Marg, )

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. )

2. MRS. KALPANA RAVINDRANATH )

INAMDAR )

of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, an Activist )

residing at B/1301, Bhoomi Paradise, Plot )

No. 1, 2, 3, Sector 11, Sanpada, Navi )

Mumbai – 400 705. )

3. MR. SANJAY RAUT )

of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, Associate )

Editor of the Newspaper styled as “Saamna”, )

having his office at Saamna Bhavan, Dainik )

Samna Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 )

 2

025. )

4. MR. RAJENDRA BHAGWAT )

Printer and Publisher, Prabodhan Prakashan, )

having its office at Saamna Bhavan, Dainik )

Samna Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 )

025. ) … DEFENDANTS

THE PLAINTIFF ABOVENAMED STATE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Plaintiff is residing at the address mentioned in the cause title.

The Plaintiff is a very well known politician, currently a Member of

the Parliament and a respected member of the Society. The Plaintiff

has an unblemished reputation and goodwill in the Society.

Defendant No.1 is a Marathi newspaper having its office at the

address mentioned in the cause title. The Defendant No.1 has

published an article in “Saamna Newspaper” dated 15th May, 2016

and thereafter on 21st May, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said

Newspaper”), which is the subject matter of this Suit. The said

newspaper is published in Marathi language and has wide circulation

in various locations in Mumbai and Maharashtra. The Defendant

No.2 is a local social activist, who has conducted a Press Conference

on 14th May, 2016, wherein certain purported documents have been

circulated, based on which the Defendant No.1 has published the

said Impugned Newspaper Articles. The Defendant No.3 is the

Associate Editor of the said Newspaper and as such responsible for

all for all the acts of omission and commission carried out by the
 3
Defendant No.1. The Defendant No. 4 is the publisher and printer of

the Impugned Newspaper Articles.

2. The present Suit is filed against the Defendants for publishing

grossly defamatory articles against the Plaintiff in the said

Newspaper owned by the Defendant No.1 and edited and authored

by the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The said defamatory article was

published on 15th May, 2016 and thereafter on 21st May, 2016, which

was based on a defamatory press note circulated in a press

conferences conducted by the Defendant No.2 which contained

baseless, shocking and defamatory statements against the Plaintiff,

which have seriously jeopardized the reputation of the Plaintiff in

the Society. The said articles dated 15th May, 2016 and 21st May

2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Impugned Defamatory

Article”) and the press notes dated 14th May, 2016 and 20th May,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Defamatory Press Notes”) has

no iota of truth and has been published without verification of facts,

knowingly with malicious intentions, solely with a view to disturb

the peace of mind of the Plaintiff and tarnish his image, integrity and

honesty before the public at large. The said Impugned Defamatory

Newspaper Article is per say defamatory and false.

3. The brief facts pertaining to the filing of the present Suit are as

follows:

4. The Plaintiff is a respected politician, currently is a Member of the

Parliament and extremely popular political figure. The Plaintiff has

been actively involved in rooting out the corrupt practices and

 4
activities prevalent in the Indian political scenario and has

extensively campaigned in bringing the perpetrators of such corrupt

practices to law. Since the year 1993-94 the Plaintiff has filed several

Public Interest Litigations in this Hon'ble Court as well as other

Hon'ble Courts in India.

5. On 15th May, 2016 the Defendant No.1 has published its issue of

Saamna. In the said issue, the Defendant No. 1 has referred to a

Press conference held by the Defendant No.2 on 14th May, 2016 in

which a press note has been circulated by the Defendant No. 2

(hereinafter referred to as “the said 1st Press Note”) certain

allegations have been levelled against the Plaintiff. The said Article

is titled as “Scam of baseless Kirit Somayya Feat of eating butter

from the skull of dead”. The said Impugned Defamatory Article

further alleges that the Plaintiff through his wife Mrs. Medha

Somaiya has grabbed a SRA Project in Santacruz and is running a

Company in the name of Medha Builders and Developers. The said

Article further alleges that the Plaintiff has pressurized the

department of Slum Rehabilitation Authority in a wrong way and by

dis-regarding the laws with the connivance of certain builders

namely Dominant Developers and Gemini Builders. Hereto annexed

and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the said Impugned

Defamatory Article dated 15th May, 2016 alongwith its true English

translation. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B is a copy of

the said 1st Press Note dated 14th May, 2016 circulated by the

Defendant No.2 alongwith its Annexures thereto and its true English

translation.
 5
6. The Plaintiff says and submits that, immediately the Plaintiff has

vide their Advocates' letter dated 16th May, 2016 bearing Ref.

No.2957/1635/2016, issued a Notice to the Defendant No.1 as well

as the Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.1 has by its letter dated

18th May, 2016 replied to the said Notice and stated that the said

Newspaper Article has been published upon receiving a Press Note

from the Defendant No.2 and at the instance of the Defendant No.2.

The Defendant No.2 has not replied to the said Notice till date.

Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibits “C”, “D” and “E” are the

copies of the Plaintiff's Advocates Notices both dated 16th May, 2016

issued to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 respectively and the

Reply dated 18th May, 2016 of the Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff's

Advocates Notice.

7. The Plaintiff simultaneously also filed a complaint with Navghar

Police Station on 17th May 2016, requesting the said police

authorities to take cognizance of the false articles printed in the said

newspaper. In reply thereto, by letter dated 25th May, 2016, informed

the Plaintiff that a complaint in that regard has been registered.

Furthermore, by a letter dated 8th June, 2016, the said Navghar

Police station has also forwarded to the Plaintiff a few cases

including a case of forgery registered against Defendant No. 2in the

past. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “F” is a copy of the

complaint dated 17th May, 2016 filed by the Plaintiff with Navghar

Police Station and Exhibits “G” and “H” are the copies of the

letters dated 25th May, 2016 and 8th June, 2016 received by the

Plaintiff from Navghar Police Station. In order not to burden this

 6
Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff craves leave to refer to and rely upon the

annexures forwarded to the Plaintiff along with the said letters, as

and when required.

8. The Plaintiff also addressed letter dated 18th May, 2016, to the Slum

Rehabilitation Authority seeking certain clarifications on the SRA

project mentioned in the said Impugned Defamatory Article dated

16th May, 2016. By letter dated 8th June, 2016, the Slum

Rehabilitation Authority has provided to the Plaintiff certain

documents which show no bearing or connection of the Plaintiff and

his family members with any projects whatsoever. Hereto annexed

and marked as Exhibits “I” and “J” are the copies of the letter

dated 18th May, 2016 addressed by the Plaintiff to the Slum

Rehabilitation Authority and reply dated 8th June, 2016 received by

the Plaintiff from Slum Rehabilitation Authority. In order not to

burden this Hon'ble Court, the Plaintiff craves leave to refer to and

rely upon the annexures forwarded to the Plaintiff along with the

said letters, as and when required.

9. Thereafter, to the shock and surprise of the Plaintiff once again on

21st May, 2016 an article titled as “Black Money Rolling in Kirit

Somaiya's Home” (hereinafter referred to as “the 2nd Defamatory

Article”) has been published in the Defendant No. 1 newspaper,

once again based on a press conference held by Defendant No. 2 on

20th May, 2016, in which once again a press note has been circulated

((hereinafter referred to as “the said 2nd Press Note”) alleging that

the Plaintiff is involved in black money and other activities. The said

article further alleges that the the Plaintiff along with his wife is
 7
involved in investing money in different companies in the name of

his relatives. The said article has been published on completely

misleading and false information provided by the Defendant No.2 in

a press note circulated in the said press conference. The said press

note alleges that Mrs. Medha Somaiya, the wife of the Plaintiff, is a

partner in various companies which is baseless and untrue. The said

articles have been given glaring publicity by the Defendant No.1

under the influence of the Defendant No.2. Hereto annexed and

marked as Exhibits “K” and “L” is a copy of the said Impugned

Defamatory Article dated 21st May, 2016 and the 2nd Press Note

dated 20th May, 2016 along with its true English translation.

10. The Plaintiff say and submit that in the said Impugned Defamatory

Articles various allegations have been made about or relating to the

Plaintiff, which are per-se unfounded, unjustified, false, untenable

and defamatory. The said Impugned Defamatory Articles forwarded

by the Defendant No.2, edited by the Defendant No.3 and published

by the Defendant No.1 is prima facie with an intention to harm the

reputation and integrity of the Plaintiff. By the said Articles, the

image of the Plaintiff is sought to be tarnished before the public at

large thereby harming the Plaintiff personally and professionally.

The impression is sought to be created by the Defendants in the

mind of the public at large is that the Plaintiff is making a show up

of his fight against corruption. By these Impugned Defamatory

Articles the Defendants have damaged the image of the Plaintiff and

his family in the eyes of the general public, his friends,

acquaintances and professional colleagues. The Plaintiff say and

 8
submit that such imputation which by itself harm his reputation is

per-se defamatory and actionable.

11. The Plaintiff further says and submits that, the Plaintiff has

underlined the main defamatory statements in the said Impugned

Defamatory Article dated 15th May, 2016. The said article clearly

inter alia, alleges that:-

(a) the Plaintiff, through his wife, is running a Company known

as “Medha Builders and Developers;

(b) the Plaintiff has grabbed a SRA Project of Santacruz;

(c) the Plaintiff is pushing this project in a wrong way by dis-

regarding the law;

(d) the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has demolished the slums

despite opposition by the Slum Dwellers;

(e) that the Plaintiff has allegedly filed a false Affidavit and has

misguided the court in some proceedings;

(f) that the Plaintiff No.1 is misusing his post and has issued a

Slum Demolition Notice;

(g) many such other false statement and allegations.

12. The Plaintiff further says and submits that, the Defendant No.2 has

circulated a Press Note on 14th May, 2016 (Ex. 'B' hereto) under

which Defendant No.2 has without any basis raised serious

 9
allegations against the Plaintiff. The said Press Note, inter alia,

alleges that :

(a) “Certain Companies, being Akash Associates, Dominant

Developers and Medha Builders and Developers are the

Companies, which belong to the Plaintiff. It is further alleged

that the Plaintiff has paid one Dominant Builders an amount

of Rs.15 Crores from his purported alleged companies, which

amount was paid by Dominant to Gemini Developers;

(b) the Plaintiff is a corrupt person and alleges that the

representatives of the Plaintiff No.1 submitted a written

Affidavit to the Hon'ble Court;

(c) the Plaintiff is involved in corruption;

(d) allegedly, SRA/CEO, Ashim Dasgupta is hand in glove and

has connived with builders to file false affidavits in Court.

13. The Plaintiff say and submit that once again on 21st May, 2016, an

article has been published in Defendant No. 1 once again based on

allegations made by the Defendant No. 2 in a press conference held

on 20th May, 2016 and in the 2nd press note circulated during the

said meeting alleging the following:

(a) Plaintiff is involved in black money in the name of his wife;

(b) Plaintiff has invested money in many companies in the name

of his relatives and is the owner of these companies.

 10
14. The Plaintiff say and submit that the contents of the Impugned Press

notes and the documents annexed thereto neither have any

connection whatsoever, nor support any allegations raised in the

press note, some of the documents are annexed are even incomplete

to suit the Defendant No.2's convenience. The said allegations are

per-se false and defamatory and seek to damage the honesty and

integrity of the Plaintiff and his family members.

15. The Plaintiff says and submits that, apart from the articles and press

notes are being defamatory per-se of the Plaintiff, the meaning

conveyed and intended to be conveyed by the impugned article and

the impression created thereby of the Plaintiff will develop feelings

of untrust and ridicule. The Plaintiff's moral and professional status

has been inevitably affected by the impugned articles more so since

the Plaintiff No.1 is actively involved in the eradication of

corruption and is popularly known for exposing corrupt officers and

corrupt activities. No fact checking has been done by the

Defendants. The entire press note as well as the article is bogus and

fabricated. The Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have clearly abused the

powers entrusted upon him as a responsible journalists. The

Defendant No. 2 being a social activist is taking undue advantage of

her position and without any basis raising false allegations against

the Plaintiff. It appears that the Defendant No.2 is seeking to gain

undue publicity as the cost of the Plaintiff and his family members.

16. The Plaintiff therefore submits that, the entire article published by

the Defendants is a story which is totally cooked up, false and

nothing but an figment of imagination on the part of the Defendant

 11
No.2 and published by the Defendant No. 1. The said allegations

have been made in the said Article contents of which are absolutely

false, baseless and defamatory. They have been made willfully,

knowingly with ulterior motive & pre-planned, pre-decided news

item without any regard for the truth. This has been done without

even taking the elementary care to check the alleged facts.

17. The Plaintiff submits that on both occasions, the Defendant No. 1

and 3 have not bothered to verify or recheck the facts with the

Plaintiff or any of his family members before publishing the said

articles, with such glaring and misleading captions. It is further

submitted that from the records it is amply clear that neither the

Plaintiff nor his family members have any connection or are related

to any SRA projects or any companies. The Plaintiff has every

reason to believe that the same has been purposely done without

verification of facts to damage the honesty and integrity of the

Plaintiff and his family members.

18. The Plaintiff further says and submits that the article written by the

Defendant No.3 is only with a view to tarnish the image of the

Plaintiff, and to generate some publicity for the Defendant No.2 at

the cost of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.2 is a habitual mischief

maker, known for her reputation for holding such press conference

and spreading baseless allegations against the public figures to

tarnish their image for her personal gain. The Defendant No.2 is well

aware of the image of the Plaintiff and his reputation in the Society.

The Defendant No.2 is further aware of the crusade of the Plaintiff's

actions against corruption and with such defamatory press note is

 12
seeking to stop the same. The aforesaid defamatory articles,

allegations and statements are intended to and calculated by the

Defendants in collusion with each other, to injure the Plaintiff's

reputation and is published with an intention to disturb the peaceful

life of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is actively involved in rooting out

the corrupt practices prevalent in the Indian political scenario and

has extensively campaigned in bringing the perpetrators of such

corrupt practices to law. The Impugned Article as well as well as the

Press Note seem to have been published upon the instigation of the

Plaintiff's rivals and is politically motivated.

19. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover damages to the tune of

Rs. 1 Crore from the Defendants, for the harm, loss, injury and

damage caused to the Plaintiff and their personal and professional

reputation by the Defendants. Having regard to the Defendants'

conduct, the Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages. The Plaintiff

submits that, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, in

addition to damages, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Defendants

ordered and directed forthwith to make a public retraction of the

allegations and publish an unqualified apology to the Plaintiff in

their forthcoming issue with full prominence being given thereto on

the cover-page. Interim and ad-interim orders to this effect are also

necessary in the interest of fair-play and justice. The Plaintiff

submits that the suit will be heard after a very long time, and merely

a prohibitory injunction against the Defendants at this stage, will not

constitute adequate relief to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submits that,

 13
in the circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to such public apology

from the Defendants forthwith.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and the glaring fact that

the articles have been published on two occasions, the Plaintiff

submit that, it is absolutely just and necessary and in the interest of

justice and equity and for the protection of the Plaintiff and their

reputation that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a

permanent order and injunction restraining the Defendants, by

themselves, their respective servants and agents or otherwise

howsoever from in any manner, directly or indirectly, re-publishing

the said impugned article or any other article on the said alleged

incident or any other article or material which is, in any manner

defamatory of the Plaintiff and/or any of his immediate family

members, in any of their publications including, in particular,

Saamna.

21. The Plaintiff submits that, the fact that the Defendant No. 2 has

already conducted two press conference, it is likely that the

Defendant No. 2 may again conduct further conferences and

circulate further false press notes, therefore it is absolutely just and

necessary and in the interest of justice and equity and for the

protection of the Plaintiff and his reputation that this Hon'ble Court

may be pleased to issue a permanent order and injunction restraining

the Defendant No.2, by herself, her respective servants and agents or

otherwise howsoever from in any manner, directly or indirectly,

holding any press conference and or re-publishing any press notes

 14
raising false allegations against the Plaintiff and/or any of his

immediate family members.

22. The balance of convenience is entirely in favour of the Plaintiff, and

that grave and irreparable loss, harm and injury will be caused to the

Plaintiff if the Defendants are permitted to print/publish and write

such similar defamatory articles. In view thereof the Plaintiff is

entitled to ad-interim and interim reliefs and if the same are not

granted the Plaintiff will suffer grave, harm, injury, loss and

prejudice which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The

Plaintiff say and submit that the Defendants are likely to republish

the said article or some article based on the same allegations or some

other material defamatory of the Plaintiff. The Defendant Nos. 1 and

3 have shown total dis-regard for truth and indulged in mere

sensationalism without even trying to verify the alleged facts.

23. The Defendants carry on a part of their business in Mumbai. The

said newspaper, Saamna, containing the said Impugned Defamatory

Article has been circulated at Mumbai. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court

has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the suit.

24. The cause of action for the Suit arose on 16th May, 2016, i.e. the date

when the Impugned defamatory Article was published. The suit is

filed within limitation.

25. For the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, the Plaintiff value the

subject matter of the suit at Rs.1,00,00,000/- and has paid the Court

fees accordingly.
 15
26. The Plaintiff will rely on documents, a list whereof is hereto

annexed.

The Plaintiff, therefore, prays:

(a) that each of the Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to

the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- or such other sum as

this Hon'ble Court may deem, just and proper as and by way

of damages;

(b) that the Defendants ordered and directed forthwith to publish

a complete and unqualified apology to the Plaintiff and

retraction of the allegations made in the said Impugned

Defamatory Articles (Exhibit “A” and “K” hereto) in the

forthcoming issue of Saamna, with full prominence on the

cover page, in such form as this Hon'ble Court directs;

(c) that the Defendant No. 2 be ordered and directed forthwith to

publish a complete and unqualified apology to the Plaintiff

and retraction of the allegations made in the said Press notes

(Exhibit “B” and “L” hereto) in the forthcoming issue of

Saamna, with full prominence on the cover page, in such

form as this Hon'ble Court directs;

(d) for a permanent order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court

restraining the Defendants, by themselves their respective

servants and agents from in any manner re-publishing the said

Impugned Defamatory Articles (Exhibit “A” and “K” hereto )

or any article based on the alleged incident or printing,

 16
circulating, distributing and/or publishing any material /

article which is in any manner defamatory of the Plaintiff in

any publications or magazine published by the Defendants

including the said newspaper, Saamna, in future;

(e) for a permanent order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court

restraining the Defendant no. 2, by herself, her respective

servants and agents from in any manner holding any press

conference or publishing, printing, circulating, distributing

any press notes which is in any manner defamatory of the

Plaintiff and/or his family members;

(f) for interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (b) to (e)

hereinabove;

(g) for the costs of this Suit; and

(h) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and

circumstances of the case may require.

Plaint drawn by us:

For M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co.

Mr. Bhavik C. Mehta

Partner Dr. Kirit J. Somaiya
Advocates for the Plaintiff (Plaintiff)

VE R I FICATI O N
 17
I, Dr. Kirit J. Somaiya, aged 63 years, of Mumbai, Indian

Inhabitant, the Plaintiff abovenamed, having his office/residing at 9C,

Neelam Nagar, Mulund (East), Mumbai – 400 081, do hereby solemnly

declare that what is stated in paragraph Nos.___ to ___ of the foregoing

Plaint is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in the remaining

paragraphs Nos. ___ to ___ is based on information and belief and I believe

the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

On this ____ day of June, 2016 )

Before me,
Identified by me:
For M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co.

Mr. Bhavik C. Mehta

Partner
Advocates for the Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL

JURISDICTION

(SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEFAMATION)

SUIT NO. OF 2016

Dr. Kirit J. Somaiya … Plaintiff

Versus

Dainik Saamna & Ors. … Defendants

PLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this day of June, 2016

M/S. DHRUVE LILADHAR & CO.

Advocates for the Plaintiff
61/62, Free Press House, 6th Floor,
215, Free Press Journal Marg,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021.
Advocates' Code No.151