TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction of the building of the society, late payment of the ground rent and other issues. The plaintiff and the other members of the Society also found that there was an unholy nexus between the management of the Society, consultant and the contractor. They found the hard earned money of the members of the Society being misused by the management committee of the society to benefit the contractor and the consultant. It was also found that the contractor was using substandard material and thus was causing serious loss to the members of the Society. But ignoring all this, the defendant no. 1 who was the President of the Society issued a certificate of appreciation to the contractor in the year 2001. 3. To highlight the irregularities and mismanagement on the part of the defendant no. 1 and other members of the Managing Committee of the Society (other defendants), the plaintiff along with other members lodged a complaint dated 12.7.2007 with the Registrar Cooperative Society, CBI and other authorities for probing into the affairs of the said Society. The above complaint was signed by 21 members of the society. 4. According to the plaintiff, as a counter blast to the said compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affidavit is re-produced below:- I say that respondent/opposite party have gone down to such an extent that respondent/opposite party even forged the signatures of some of the residents/members in the letter issued to the registrar office as well as other government agencies to put the weight in respondent's/opposite party's false and frivolous complaints against the society. I say that however respondents/opposite party could not succeed in respondent's/opposite party's ill deeds and members/signatories disowned any signatures given to the respondent/opposite party. I say that the copy of the letters received from some of such residents enclosed with the petition now marks as ANNEXURE-F. I say that respondent/opposite party was once again found guilty for tampering documents and records to create problems for the society as a whole 9. According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 2 to 6 also filed their respective affidavits in the proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Delhi in the month of November 2008 most of the contents of those affidavits were again defamatory in nature reiterating that the plaintiff had forged the signatures of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved by the allegations leveled by the defendants in the petition dated 1.2.2008 itself and through the said affidavit filed in November, 2008, the averments made by the defendants in their petition were only reiterated and if the period of limitation is reckoned from 1.2.2008 then the present suit filed by the plaintiff with respect to the said affidavit is again barred by limitation. Secondly, that since the statements made by the defendants in the affidavits are covered under the defence of Absolute Privilege, thus, they are immune from action for defamation and consequently, suit is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(d), CPC being barred by law. To support this argument, the counsel for the defendants submitted that since the proceedings before the Registrar Cooperative Society, before which the affidavit has been filed, are judicial proceedings, therefore, they are entitled to Absolute Privilege with respect to the contents of the said affidavit. The counsel further submitted that the said affidavit filed in November 2008 was nothing but a reiteration of the averments in the petition filed by the defendants seeking expulsion of the plaintiff from the said Society ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y trial. In support of this argument, Counsel placed reliance on the following cases:- 1. Pandey Surinder Nath Singh V. Bageshwari Prasad: AIR 1961 Pat 164. 2. D.V. Singh V. Pritam Singh Taneja: 2012(186) DLT 178 3. Ashok Kumar V. Radha Kishan Vij Others,: 991 ILR (1982) II DEL. Refuting the third objection, the counsel submitted that there exists a proper cause of action in filing the present suit for defamation as even the society has dismissed all the allegations leveled by the defendants against the plaintiff by its order dated 23 April 2010. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by them. 16. The following issues emerge out of the contentions of the rival parties:- 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation and thus liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 2. Whether the allegations leveled in the affidavits are immune from action for defamation as they are covered under the defence of Absolute Privilege and consequently, the plaint is liable to be rejected being barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d), CPC. 3. Whether there exists no cause of action in filing the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an may disparage or destroy the reputation of another. Every man has a right to have his good name maintained unimpaired. Words which produce, in any given case, appreciable injury to the reputation of another are called defamatory, and defamatory words if false are actionable. 21. In Miller v. Thompson 1874 LR 9 CP 118, attempt is made to define defamation as exposing a person to contempt, ridicule, or public hatred or to prejudice him in the way of office, profession or trade. 22. Blackburn and George, in their Elements of Law of Torts, define defamation as a tort of publishing a statement which tends to bring a person into hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. 23. Faulks Committee in England in 1875 defines Defamation as Defamation shall consist of the publication to the third party of matter which in all circumstances would be likely to affect a person adversely in the estimation of reasonable people generally. 24. To claim that a particular statement is defamatory there should be publication to a third party and such publication s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in the course of judicial proceedings as below:- It is imperative that judges, counsel and witnesses participating in the judicial proceedings must be able to conduct themselves without any apprehension of being called upon to answer a claim for damages for defamation. They must be able to act uninfluenced by any such fear. Freedom of speech on such occasions has to be totally safeguarded. Hence it is necessary to protect the maker of such statements on such occasions. The privilege arises on account of privilege attached to the occasion and not to the individual....Basis of privilege is not absence of malice or the truth of the statement or the intention of the maker, but public policy. Any restriction on privilege during the occasion would create constraints in the process of administration of justice. Quoting the extracts from the judgment of Fry L.J. in Munster v. Lamb, (1883) 11 QBD 588, the court went on to say that In public interest it is not desirable to inquire whether the words or actions of these persons are malicious or not. It is not that there is any privilege to be malicious, but that so far as it is a privilege of an individual and a right of a public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent on which the privilege is based must be relevant in the narrow sense of that word; it suffices if the statement is made with reference to the subject of the enquiry, or is relative to the matter in hand. The words 'subject to the enquiry' ought to have a very wide and comprehensive application and ought to extend to a statement which a party or a witness might naturally reasonably make when giving a statement with reference to the matter in hand. 36. The doctrine of judicial privilege has, in process of time, developed, and, now, it has been extended to tribunals exercising functions equivalent to those of an established Court of justice. The court in Pandey Surinder Nath Singh's case (supra), observed that:- This privilege extends to all Courts, superior or inferior, civil or revenue or military. It applies not only to all kinds of Courts of justice, but also to other tribunals recognised by law and acting judicially. The privilege, although it extends to tribunals acting in a manner similar to Courts of justice, does not, however, apply to tribunals which merely discharge administrative functions, or to officials possessing merely administrative as oppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as setting in motion judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 40. It follows, therefore, and, it is also quite plain, from the above decisions, that the doctrine of judicial privilege, even when extended to tribunals exercising functions equivalent to those of an established Court of justice, applies where there is an authorised enquiry, which though not before a Court of justice, is before a tribunal which has similar attributes. 41. The essence of the rule of Absolute Privilege, therefore, is that the complaint must be addressed to a body which has judicial functions, or, quasi-judicial functions, and, the complaint must be a step in setting in motion judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 42. Observing the facts of the present case in the background of the law the principles discussed above, the present suit for defamation is based on the defamatory statements contained in the affidavits filed by the defendants in the proceedings before the Registrar of the Cooperative Society, Delhi. In my view, the proceedings before the Registrar of the cooperative society are quasi-judicial in nature. 43. Reference may be made to the various sections of the Delhi Cooperativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Act for the recovery of any amount by the attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property, or when passing any orders on any application made to him for such recovery or for taking a step-in-aid-of such recovery, to be civil court for the purpose of article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963); etc. Also, referring to section 56 contained in Chapter XV of the bye-laws of the Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., the same reads as:- If any dispute touching the constitution or the business of the Society arises between members or past members of the Society or person claiming through a member or past member of the Society (past or present) or between the Society and any officer, member or servant of the Society (past or present) it shall be referred to the Registrar as provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 44. Here, it would be relevant to cite the observations made by the Delhi High Court in the case The Punjabi Bagh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. K.L. Kishwar and Another 95 (2002) DLT 573, which are reproduced below the Joint Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act has the authority to look into th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
