Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1183 (DEL)

BENNETT COLEMAN and COMPANY LTD. v. RAJAN VERMA

2008-12-19

J.R.MIDHA, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2008
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) Caveat No.86/2008 Since caveator appears the caveat stands discharged. CM No.17964/2008 Allowed subject to just exceptions. RFA 489/2008 1. Learned counsel for the parties state that a purely legal issue arises in the appeal and hence the same may be heard for disposal today itself. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We note that Rajan Verma, plaintiff of the suit, has filed a caveat and advance copy of the appeal has been served upon him. He has appeared through counsel. 3. Rajan Verma filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.3,27,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only) and injunction. Injunction prayed for was to prohibit ‘Hindustan Times’ and the publishers of the newspaper ‘The Time of India’ from publishing advertisements pertaining to the products of defendant No.1 M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. 4. Case pleaded in the plaint was that M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. was the manufacturer/importer of Nokia phones and defendant No.2, Asian Electronics, was its dealer. It was pleaded that defendant No.3, Hindustan Times and defendant No.4, Bennett Coleman and Co. were publishing daily newspapers ‘Hindustan Times’ and ‘The Times of India’. It was asserted that the plaintiff purchased a Nokia mobile phone from defendant No.2 on 6.7.2006 after paying Rs.27,200/-. He alleged that the phone was not giving satisfactory services in respect whereof repeated complaints were lodged. It was pleaded that the mobile set was handed over for rectification and that the plaintiff had to repeatedly run to various officers of M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., some of whom spoke very rudely with him. It was asserted that a defective mobile set was sold to the plaintiff by defendants No.1 and 2. 5. Qua defendants No.3 and 4 it was pleaded that they were permitting false and misleading advertisements regarding products to be published. It was pleaded that the advertisements are meant to cheat unwary people. 6. Monetary claim was laid against defendants No.1 and 2 in sum of Rs.3,27,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only). Injunction sought against defendants No.3 and 4 was, as noted above, to prohibit them from publishing advertisements relatable to the products of defendant No.1. 7. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 learned Trial Judge has returned findings of harassment caused by defendant No.1 and 2. A decree has been passed against said defendants in sum of Rs.1,27,200/-(Rupees One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only). 8. 7. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 learned Trial Judge has returned findings of harassment caused by defendant No.1 and 2. A decree has been passed against said defendants in sum of Rs.1,27,200/-(Rupees One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand Only). 8. Qua the appellant, learned Trial Judge has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction as prayed for. However, the learned Trial Judge has issued a direction as under:- ‘Hence I feel that the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction as claimed however I feel this is the duty of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 to issue the caution along with the advertisement stating that features or qualities is not guaranteed by the newspaper. With this direction, issue stands disposed.’ 9. Itis pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that as pleaded in the written statement, though not obliged under any law, by way of precaution, the appellant cautions all readers of the newspaper who read the advertisements published therein as under:- ‘Readers are advised to make appropriate enquiries and seek appropriate advice before sending money, incurring any expenses, acting on medical recommendations or entering into any published in this publication. The Times of India Group doesn’t vouch for any claims made by the Advertisers of products and services. The Printer, Publisher, Editor and Owners or the Times of India Group publications shall not be held liable for any consequences, in the event such claims are not honoured by the Advertisers. 10. Learned counsel points out that the learned Trial Judge has ignored the said pleading, made good by production of the newspaper. 11. With respect to the claim in the plaint, suffice would it be to state that it was not the case of Rajan Verma that he chose to purchase a Nokia handset after he saw and read an advertisement relating to the said product as published in ‘The Times of India’. 12. We thus fail to understand as to how he could implead defendants No.3 and 4 as parties in the suit. 13. Be that as it may, no rule of law, either statutory or under common law has been cited, much less referred to, by the learned Trial Judge. 14. In fact a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge shows self-contradictory findings. 13. Be that as it may, no rule of law, either statutory or under common law has been cited, much less referred to, by the learned Trial Judge. 14. In fact a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge shows self-contradictory findings. Immediately preceding the suo motu directions issued by the learned Trial Judge, discussing issue No.1: whether the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction as claimed; findings returned is as under:- ‘Defendants No.3 and 4 are newspapers who have to carry the advertisement as per the specifications given by the clients and advertisement is owned by the advertiser and the newspaper shall have no responsibility if someone is adduced by the advertisement and misled.’ 15. Under the circumstances, noting that the appellant is already publishing an advice as afore-noted, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.2008 insofar it has directed the appellant to issue a caution along with each advertisement stating that features or qualities are not guaranteed by the newspaper. 16. We refrain from imposing any costs.