Publishers Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shilpa S. Shetty  Insc 1300 (14 December 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
appears that vide an interim order dated 12.1.2001, the High Court granted ad
interim injunction and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to
brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:
respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film actress of good standing.
Certain articles were published in the magazine published by the appellants
called Stardust. A suit for damages of Rs.20 crores alleging that the
articles are defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for
injunction restraining the appellants from publishing defamatory articles was
filed. Notice of motion for interim injunction was taken out. Learned Single
Judge was of the prima facie view that the articles deal with the personal life
and are defamatory in nature and granted interim injunction.
interim injunction reads as follows:
as directed in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (supra), a modified
injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants from republishing the
three articles and/or from writing and publishing any defamatory article in the
nature of the three articles alleging that the plaintiff is having relationship
with other actors or a married man, which will operate till the disposal of the
said order dated 12.01.2001, as noted above, was challenged in appeal.
Before the Division Bench, the stand was that the interim injunction granted
was beyond the prayer made in the notice of motion. The High Court noted that
in notice of motion, the prayer was in the following terms:
pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to issue an order and injunction restraining the defendants from in any
way or manner carrying our defamatory, allegations and imputations in future
against the plaintiff".
Division Bench was of the further view that the Learned Single Judge had not
granted interim protection beyond what was prayed and was covered by the
other stand before the Division Bench was that moment justification is pleaded,
there can be no interim protection. This plea was also rejected stating that a
person cannot be defamed by allowing such publications in future.
shall be required to be established at the time of hearing of the suit by
There were certain other stands relating to lack of pleadings about the
reputation and character. The Division Bench found that also to be without
substance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the
Division Bench. Mr. Bhattacharye, learned counsel for the respondent supported
find that the matter relates to an interim order and while granting leave, the
prayer for grant of interim relief was refused. In other words, interim order
passed by learned Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench continues to be
operative. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
we think it proper to dispose of the appeal without interference. We, however,
request the High Court to explore the possibility of early disposal of the suit
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.