Karnataka High Court has instructed the trial court to continue with the defamation case brought by Manna Dey’s daughter concerning a Bengali book.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the Trial Court in Bengaluru has the authority to handle the lawsuit filed by the daughter of late singer Manna Dey, which claims defamatory content in a Bengali book. The Court pointed out that the issue arose within the Bengaluru Court’s local area. It noted that the Trial Court mistakenly believed that simply selling books in Bengaluru did not establish jurisdiction. A miscellaneous first appeal was submitted to contest the decision that the Trial Court lacked the territorial authority to hear the case and ordered the plaint to be filed in the appropriate court within 60 days.
Justice H.P. Sandesh, on the Single-Judge Bench, stated, “It is evident that books are sold and circulated in Bengaluru, where Bengali people also live.” Advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni represented the Appellant, while Advocate Suman K.S. represented the Respondent. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from reprinting, distributing, or altering the defamatory content found in the introductory page and the seventh chapter of the book “Tarader Sesh Chitthi” (Star’s Last Letter) about Manna Dey. It also requests a permanent injunction against defendant No.6 from broadcasting or communicating similar content and demands that the defendants collectively pay Rs.1,10,00,000 in compensation to the plaintiffs.
The Trial Court identified several issues, including additional ones, and treated Issue No. 5 as a preliminary matter concerning its territorial jurisdiction over the case. It observed that the content in question was published in Bengali in ‘Anand Bazaar Patrika’ and in the book ‘Tarader Shesh Chitthi’ in Kolkata, West Bengal. The Court referenced Section 19 of the CPC, noting that the mere sale of these books in Bengaluru did not grant it territorial jurisdiction. The appellants argued that even though the books were published in Kolkata, their sale in Bengaluru was significant. They claimed that since the defamatory book was circulated within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction, the language of the book was irrelevant, as there are Bengali speakers in Bengaluru who read it.
The Bench, referring to Sections 19 and 20 of the CPC, clarified that Section 19 states that if a suit is filed for compensation for harm done to a person, and if that harm occurred within one Court’s jurisdiction while the defendant resides or operates within another’s, the plaintiff can choose to file in either Court. The appellants pointed out that after the books were sold, residents of Bengaluru reached out to them regarding the defamatory content, leading the Bench to conclude that the harm occurred within the Trial Court’s jurisdiction. The Bench emphasized that Section 19 clearly supports the filing of the suit for the wrong done to individuals.
The appellants have clearly stated in the case that books are sold in Bengaluru, which means the issue also arose there. The Bench noted that this case involves the publication and sale of books in Bengaluru. It stated, “This Court believes the Trial Court made a mistake by concluding that selling a book in Bengaluru does not establish jurisdiction here. This view is incorrect because the wrongdoing occurred in Bengaluru through the sale and distribution of the books. The Trial Court also misinterpreted Section 19 of the CPC regarding where to file the suit and overlooked that the wrongdoing took place in Bengaluru. Additionally, it wrongly claimed that the book was only published in Bengali.” The Bench agreed with the appellant’s argument that the High Court can review the Trial Court’s findings since it took an incorrect approach by stating that jurisdiction only arises from the book being in Bengali and that selling books in Bengaluru does not create jurisdiction. Therefore, the Bench allowed the first appeal and instructed the Trial Court to examine the case based on its merits.
Cause Title: Mrs. Shumita Deb v. Gautam Bhattacharya [Case No. MFA No.6128 OF 2024 (CPC)]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni & Dharmendra Chatur
Respondents: Advocates Suman K.S., Umesha R., B.V. Nidhishree
