In a suit seeking damages for defamation that has arisen from the use of a particular monologue in a trailer of the movie “Jolly LLB 2”, wherein one of the lead characters in the movie, played by actor Anu Kapoor, had sarcastically and in an extremely offensive tenor, taunted the lead protagonist i.e. applicant-defendant as being a lawyer who cannot stand up to him which lack of ability is sought to be inferred from the fact that the lead protagonist is wearing cheap footwear and poor quality apparel, the Delhi High Court clarified that the plea raised by the applicant, by referring to a few specific paragraphs of the plaint, that the plaintiff has not attributed defamatory acts to the applicant, cannot be read in isolation.
The Court found that in response to the offending language, the applicant (being the character that he plays), gives a hard slap to the character who spoke the monologue, which is in Hindi, a specific brand of footwear is named, and in its English translation by way of subtitles, the words used are “cheap footwear”. The brand spoken of in the monologue is “BATA”, which is the plaintiff herein.
The Court held that when the plaint is read as a whole, the necessary averments disclosing the cause of action come out clearly. Whether or not a case for seeking damages is made out is a matter of trial. Thus, the acts of the applicant with which the plaintiff has a grievance were post the serving of legal notice, i.e., continued exhibition of the defamatory trailer.
Whether the film certification provides a complete defence to the allegation of defamation (by way of exhibition of the movie trailer by the applicant) or whether the legal notice served on the applicant does not provide a valid cause of action for the plaintiff are issues to be adjudicated at the end of a trial, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr Ajay Gulati (Joint Registrar) observed that following the trailer’s release of ‘Jolly LLB 2’, the plaintiff issued a legal notice. Subsequently, a decree of permanent injunction was passed against the use of the brand BATA even before the movie’s theatrical release. As a result, the monologue was altered in the final movie, replacing the word ‘BATA’ with ‘phata’ (meaning torn). Accordingly, the Bench found that applications were filed seeking deletion from the array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Bench found force in the plaintiff’s submission regarding a potential conspiracy, questioning the deliberate use of the ‘BATA’ trademark, especially when the character was not wearing the plaintiff’s footwear. The allegation of conspiracy, supported by the applicant’s status as a brand ambassador for a rival and his admission of producing movies, was deemed sufficient to raise a triable issue.
The Bench held that even setting aside the conspiracy allegation, the “independent act of applicant tweeting the defamatory content makes him liable to answer the claim for damages” was a triable issue in itself. The Bench thus dismissed the applications of both exhibitors, observing that the CBFC certificate does not offer an “impenetrable defence”, and its evidentiary value is a matter to be tested at trial.
The Bench noted that the exhibitors failed to place their agreements with the distributors on record to substantiate their claim of being obligated to run the trailer. The Defendant No. 6 did not show any bona fide action, such as communicating with the producer after receiving the plaintiff’s notice. Accordingly, the Bench concluded that the argument of mala fide invocation of territorial jurisdiction is a matter for the Court to adjudicate, not the Joint Registrar.
Appearances:
Advocates Neeraj Grover and Angad Deep Singh, for the Plaintiff
Advocates Kushal Gupta, Akanksha Singh, Dhanesh Relan, and Shambhavi Pandey, for the Defendant
