Bombay HC quashes magistrate's order against ex-Trustee of Tata Trust in defamation case

MUMBAI: In a relief to ex-Managing Trustee of Tata Trusts, R. Venkataramanan in a defamation case filed against him by Shapoorji Pallonji & Co, Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed summons issued against him by a subordinate court for criminal proceedings. Justice Mridula Bhatkar set aside an October 2018 order of process issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Ballard Pier.

Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Pvt. Ltd had filed a complaint last September to initiate criminal prosecution against Venkataramanan for defamation under section 500 of Indian Penal Code, overstatement issued by him in connection with accusations made against him by former Tata Sons executive chairperson Cyrus Mistry and the Shapoorji Pallonji group over Air Asia India. The complaint had alleged that a press note issued by Venkataramanan on May 30, 2018 had defamed the entire Shapoorji Pallonji group.

Venkataramanan had moved the HC to challenge the magistrate’s order. His legal team comprising leading counsel AM Singhvi, M Parasaran with Majeed Memon had argued the press note should be read in context with the previous legal battle between Tata Sons and Shapporji Pallonji and Cyrus Mistry since his removal as executive chairperson of Tata Sons in October 2016. Whatever is stated in the press note is by way of refuting the allegations made against him, argued his lawyers.

Justice Bhatkar agreed that the words used by Venkataramanan have to be read in the “entire context’’ in reference to earlier disputes. She considered the history of earlier litigation between the two sides and held that the “words used in the press note are not all defamatory.” ‘They are moderate and temperate. They do not invite contempt, ridicule or hatred against the persons mentioned in it…Certain statements if found incorrect, can be corrected without labelling them defamatory.’’

The Ballard Pier Court had issued process against Venkataramanan on the basis that “the allegation of the accused in the press statement might come within the meaning of defamation as per section 499 explanation 2 of IPC (which deals with imputations concerning a company)”.

Shapoorji Pallonji's counsel argued against quashing the magistrate’s order saying that the HC had “limited scope’’ to intervene unless there is “something more than a mere error of law.’’ The HC did not accept his submissions that “two letters from other companies or customers enquiring about the press note statement, is evidence of defamation.

“The Court has to be guarded and should have an eye to read between the lines when the complaint of defamation is filed,’’ said Justice Bhatkar in a 35-page judgment which also expounded on importance of “choosing words while expressing feelings.’’.

“To call particular statement defamation is subjectively easy and, therefore, it is necessary to see whether the complainant is using this process of law as a weapon against the other person to settle a score or some other dues,’’ said the HC setting aside the magistrate’s order.

A spokeperson for Shapporji Pallonji group said, "We are studying and evaluating the order passed by the Bombay HC. We are considering all available legal options and will be taking all appropriate legal steps to safeguard and protect our long standing goodwill and reputation built over 150 years.''