MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. versus SHILPA S. SHETTY

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. 
A 
v. 
SHILPA S. SHETTY 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
B 
Defamation: 
Publication of defamatory articles in a magazine against a film C 
actress-Filing of suit by the actress for damages and injunction 
restraining publisher from publishing the articles-Single Judge of 
High Court granting interim injunction-Affirmed by Division Bench 
of the High Court- On appeal, Held: Interim order granting injunction 
continues to be operative-High Court to dispose of the suit at the D 
earliest. 
Respondent-a film actress filed a suit for damages of Rs.20 
crorcs against the appellant-publishers of a magazine on the ground 
that the articles published in the magazine were defamatory in nature 
and would affect her career and for injunction restraining the E 
appellants from publishing such articles. Single Judge of the High 
Com1 granted interim injunction. The order was affirmed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The matter relates to an interim order and while 
granting leave, the prayer for grant of interim relief was refused b~ 
this Court. In other words, interim order passed by the Single Judge 
F 
as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court continues to be 
operative. The High Court is requested to explore the possibility of G 
early disposal of the suit pending before it. [Para 11] [741-F-G] 
1.2. No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the 
case. [Para 11] [741-G] 
739 
H 
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 344 of 
... 
2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.7.2001 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 128 of2001 in Notice of 
Motion No. 25 of 2001 in Suit No. 36 of 2001. 
B 
E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala and Amit Kumar 
Shanna for the Appellants. 
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondent. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
2. It appears that vide an interim order dated 12.1.2001, the High 
D Court granted ad interim injunction and a Division Bench of the Bombay 
High Court refused to interfere. 
~ 
T 
3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice: 
4. The respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film actress of 
E 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 
F 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 The interim injunction reads as follows: 
"Therefore, as directed in the case of Indian Express Newspapers 
(supra), a modified injunction is hereby granted restraining the 
G 
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 suit." 
H 
i 
~ 
... 
-I' 
MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO.LTD. v. SHILPAS.SHETTY 
741 
[PASAYAT,J.] 
5. The said order dated 12.01.2001, as noted above, was challenged 
in appeal. 
' 
6. 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: 
"That 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'. 
7. The 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 prayer. 
8. 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. Justification shall be 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.