LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

dinesh kumar   23 November 2015

Legal aid

a corporate giant has filed a civil defamation suit against me my editor and ceo. i have moved an application to open a mjc on several charges of perjury against plantiff no. 2 and have plans to get the suit dismissed on the grounds that the case is not maintainable because the four news reports drubbed libel was filed in wider public intrest soon after an incident of fire . I am a working journalist associated with a english news paper. could i file the application under order 7 rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of the suit because law has protected us. kindly guide. i am representing the case in person. 


 3 Replies

Augustine Chatterjee,New Delhi (Advocate & Solicitor at Law)     24 November 2015

Find relevant judgements wrt your case . 7 11 is a pure question of law . Hence only judgements shall help you . What were the allegations that u had levelled ?

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     03 December 2015

I dont think that your petition under  order 7 rule 11 will be maintainable.  You have not given the charges leveled against you and what is your intended defence or the grounds for filing the said petition.

You can come out with the details so that proper advise can be rendered to you  

dinesh kumar   05 December 2015

The law has protected we journalist when we file stories in public intrest soon after any incident. A fire broke out in the premises of a cement factory in our district coming up in voilation of all rules and norms of the country. the landlooser farmers were up in arms against the factory over their agricultural land purchased by the company through keeping the villagers in dark. From 2011 to 2013 did come up with about 100 news reports highlighting the irregulariteis of hte company management. but never shook hands or bow before. The company was to start production from April 1 2013 and repay Rs. 225 crore term loan in 40 installments from the date of commercial production. It was nowhere in a position to start production. With the fire they succeeded in rescheduling the installment payment and were hopeful of getting about 600 crores insurance. We did unravel a conspiracy between some officials in the company, a maoist and his supporters behind the fire in a front page banner news two days after the fire and its being said due to our report they couldnt get insurance claims and the police harassed them a lot. The alleged maoist is behind bars. While other newspaper wrote irked landlooser torched the factory we highlighted the conspiracy. After the fire three fourt villagers including children were put behind bars and others had fled fearing arrest. The authoriteis took a serious note of our reports and all of 250 arrest but for 37 were released. The company in the civil suit has alleged taht we tried to influence the police investigation with the report because these people couldnt use the police. i have moved an application before submitting the counter to get the case dismissed because the law has protected us and our reports in public intrest soon after the incident is defamatory. The case is pending in the court since last two years and our application has not been decided. Due to ignorance of law in the application we have sought mjc for the worng affidavits given by a company officials in different courts under section 340 . He has said on oath in a jfmc court that me my editor and ceo send goons to torch his factory. that we threw fire balls upon a police officials . We unravelled the conspiracy first in the report and he was out to prove that we conspired to torch his factory . Both the company lawyer and the judge said this is a civil court and crpc 340 is not applicable. Then in the next hearing we did submit citation where section 340 is applicable in civil court. Our mistake was we did seek a dismissal of the case under the provisions of CRPC. In the next hearing i am planing to submit a ammended application under proper legal frame work seeking dismissal of hte case under order 7 --  11 as the law has protected us . The judge in the last hearing said he would decide the application later. We are insisting him to decide the application so that we could move the High Court and have plans to move an application under section 151 for this. please kindly guide. 

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query