Holding

The Supreme Court held that the interim injunction granted by the High Court is valid, remains operative, and the appeal is dismissed without interference.

Summary

The film actress Shilpa S. Shetty filed a civil suit for Rs 20 crore in damages and an injunction against Magna Publishers and others, alleging that three articles published in the magazine 'Stardust' were defamatory and would damage her career. The Bombay High Court, on a prima facie view, granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from republishing the articles or publishing any similar defamatory material, and the Division Bench upheld this order. The appellants challenged the injunction on the ground that it exceeded the prayer in their notice of motion and that no interim relief should be granted without proof of defamation. The Supreme Court examined whether the interim order could be interfered with and held that the injunction was within the scope of the prayer and therefore remains operative. Without expressing any view on the merits of the defamation claim, the Court disposed of the appeal, directing the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the interim injunction continues until the trial concludes.

Issues considered

Whether the interim injunction granted by the High Court exceeds the relief prayed for in the notice of motion
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside or modify the interim injunction pending final disposal of the suit
Whether an interim injunction is maintainable in a defamation suit without a finding of actual defamation

Subjects

defamationinterim injunctioncivil proceduremedia lawinjunction scopeappellate jurisdictionfreedom of speech

Judgment

MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. A
v.
SHILPA S. SHETTY

DECEMBER 12, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Defamation:
Publication ofdefamatory 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
ofthe 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
F
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
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 PASAYAI, 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
MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO.LTD. v. SHILPAS.SHETTY 741
[PASAYAT,J.]

i 5. The said order dated 12.01.2001, as noted above, was challenged
in appeal. A
~

' the stand was that the interim injunction
6. Before the Division Bench,
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:
B
"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 c
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
D
also rejected stating that a person cannot be defamed by allowing such
...-I' publications in future. Justification shall be required to be established at
the time of hearing of the suit by leading evidence.
9. There were certain other stands relating to lack of pleadings about
the reputation and character. The Division Bench found that also to be E
without substance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken
before the Division Bench. Mr. Bhattacharye, learned counsel for the
respondent supported the order.
F
11. We 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 G
the appeal without interference. We, however, request the High Court to
..-. explore the possibility of early disposal of the suit No.36/2001 .
12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
S.K.S. Appeal disposed of H