$~23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI No.160l/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED ORS Plaintiffs Through: Mr. S.C. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar and Mr. Sidharth Sharma, Advs. Versus JOHN ORS Defendants Through: None. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 07.12.2016 IA No.15241/2016 (u/S 149 CPC) l. Accepting the undertaking of the counsel for the plaintiffs that the de?ciency in court fees will be made up within two weeks, the time for depositing the entire court fees is extended by two weeks. 2. If the court fees is not filed, the Registry to put up the matter before this Court. 3. The application is disposed of. IA No.15240/2016 (for exemption) 4. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 5. The application is disposed of. No.152391?2016 (ui?O XI CPC) 6. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and the plaintiffs are permitted to ?le additional documents within thirty days. No.1601/2016 Page 1 0f 7 \qum 9 Omar?"NU! Higl 1 of Delhi he Deini 7. The application is disposed of. No.1601/2016 [As No.15238/2016 (m?O CPC) 15242/2016 (u/S 80 CPU 8. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs, on enquiry, as to the need for impleading defendant No.2 Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and which has necessitated ?ling of IA No.15242/2016 under Section 80(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) states that the defendant No.2 has been impleaded to be able to issue directions to the defendants No.3 to 5 to furnish the particulars of the registrants of the email and IP addresses listed as defendant No.1. 9. The said direction can be issued by the Court also, if required. 10. The counsel for the plaintiffs gives up the defendant No.2 Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications. The same is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. An endorsement to the said effect be made by the Court Master under her signatures in today?s date. 11. In view of the above, IA No.15242/2016 under Section 80(2) CPC has become infructuous and is disposed of. 12. The three plaintiffs namely Tata Sons Limited, Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. and Mr. Tarun Samant being the Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO) of Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. have instituted this suit to restrain the defendants from making, publishing, distributing, posting, repeating and/or republishing any defamatory libelous disparaging material by any media with respect to the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever and for other reliefs. No.1601/2016 Page 2 of 7 \qum a .a -- Engh ?ew 091111 13. Though the relief claimed in the suit as well as in the application for interim relief is so widely worded but the averments in the plaint are with respect to the defamatory emails from the email addresses listed as defendant No.1 being sent with respect to the plaintiff No.2 Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. and the plaintiff No.3 Mr. arun Samant only and not with respect to any of the other companies of the ata Group of which shares are held by the plaintiff No.1 Tata Sons Limited or per 36 with respect to the plaintiff No.1 Tata Sons Limited. 14. It has thus been enquired from the senior counsel for the plaintiffs as to how the relief, as so widely worded and which would cover all companies of Tata Group and restrain everyone from publishing any material or news or statement with respect to the Tata Group controlled by the plaintiff No.1 Tata Sons Limited, can be granted on the pleaded case. 15. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs states that he is not pressing the relief in so wide terms and confines the same to the emails with respect to the functioning of plaintiff No.2 Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. and relating to its CEO, plaintiff No.3 Mr. Tarun Samant only. 16. It is also the case of the plaintiffs themselves that the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) (not a party to this suit) constituted under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Act, 1999 prescribes quali?cations including of education for the CEO of a company as the plaintiff No.2 Tata Motors Insurance Broking No.1601/2016 Page 3 of 7 ?4 oar New. I. mid" Advisory Services Ltd. The purported defamatory emails have been ?led by the plaintiffs at pages 36 to 304 to their documents. I was unable to go through each and every email in the morning and a reading of the ?rst few pages suggests that the said emails are in relation to the plaintiff No.3 Mr. Tarun Samant not possessing the requisite quali?cations and the documents submitted by him claiming such quali?cations being forged and fabricated. 17. On enquiry, whether IRDA has investigated the complaint about the quali?cations of the plaintiff No.3 Mr. Tarun Samant, the senior counsel for the plaintiffs states that instructions will be taken on the said aspect. 18. It has thus been enquired from the senior counsel for the plaintiffs, as to how there can be a bar against anyone complaining to a statutory authority as the IRDA of non-compliance of any of its directives. 19. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are not pressing the suit for restraining anyone from complaining to any authority concerned with respect to the educational quali?cations of the plaintiff No.3 Mr. Tarun Samant or with respect to any other activity of plaintiff No.2 Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. which can be subject matter of complaint to any of such authorities. 20. Having found the emails to be addressed largely to the Executives of Tata Group only, it has further been enquired, as to What possibly can be the grievance with respect to the complaints addressed to the of?cials of Tata Group in a position to make amends. 21. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs states that the emails, besides being addressed to the concerned persons of Tata Group are being addressed to a large number of other employees of Tata Group, as well as to the Prime No.1601/2016 Page 4 0f 7 tP" \kw?aurt ?at; mt D?lhs Ministers of foreign countries Where the Tata Group have interest. 22. Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief to the defendants by all modes including dasti and at the email addresses listed as defendant No.1, returnable on 27th January, 2017. 23. Subject to and confined to the concessions aforesaid of the plaintiffs, till further orders, the registrants of the following email addresses: ai av singhl 990@yahoo .com b) mohiteaj ay 1 l@rediffmail . com (C) mrmundhrai Shivangi96patil@rediffmail.com mo 2511iV3lH?F?dif?Tl?l 1 .com tn and a rob i1@1'ed i ff?inai I .com sabnisarunl999@rediffmail.com uleensi nghtomal??redi ffma i 1 .com rawatsuk hdev?lredi t??nai Leom sonsuren dratali a@redi ai 1 .com (1) iamimposter@rediffmail . com (111) ffmai 1 .com dinfalishaw@rediffmail.com kadamvitthalmrabredif?nail . com p) sing sara@rediffmail.com blowhiGDre-di f?nailcom shavek@rediffmai I .com parvezbatliwalal 9 l9@yahoo.com No.1601/2016 Page 5 of 7 Court Master . g?un?igh court ofl ?at New Delhi (W) (X) (2) (aa) (bb) (CC) (dd) (ee) (ff) (gs) (hh) (ii) mad hupendse??yahoo.com ravindralimaye64@ gmail .com sanieevsingh 3 89@.rediffmail .com menonranj eeth699 1 @rediffmail .com neerairatan68 @Vahoo.com bansaltrilok4@gmail . com altarshbajoria?ilgmail.com deshmar@redif?nail . com singhnaveen123 461) gmailcom arnavazmasani1976@Jgnail.com ranshek9@gmail.com mulnandan@gmail.com whistleblower67@gmail.com and IP addresses: (1) (ii) are restrained from making, publishing, distributing, posting, repeating and/or republishing any defamatory libelous disparaging material qua the plaintiff No.2 Tata Motors Insurance Broking Advisory Services Ltd. and the plaintiff No.3 Mr. Tarun Samant relating to the appointment of Mr. Tarun Samant and his continuance in the said of?ce and the defendants No.3 103.217.240.70 103.217.240.142 103.217.240.138 No. 1601/2016 1 rt Master ts New Delhi to 5 namely M/s Alliance Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s G.C. Link Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pyne Cable Systems stated to be the service providers on which the email addresses and IP addresses are posted are directed to, within ten days of service of notice furnish to this Court in a sealed cover the identities of the registrants of the aforesaid email addresses and IP addresses. 24. Provisions of Order Rule 3 of CPC be also complied with similarly. Copy of this order be given dastz' under the signatures of the Court Master. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. DECEMBER 07, 2016 bs.. No.1601/2016 Page 7 of 7 \kamm court Mail?Helm