Delhi High Court Dismisses The Telegraph's Appeal Against ITC Hotel's Suit Over Allegedly Defamatory News

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed the appeals preferred by ABP Pvt Ltd, publisher of The Telegraph, in a defamation case filed by ITC Hotels back in 2004.

The defamation case pertains to an allegedly defamatory news article carried out by The Telegraph against ITC's former chairperson Yogesh Chander Deveshwar.

While YCD filed a defamation suit against the English daily in Calcutta claiming damages for defamation to the tune of Rs.550 Crores, ITC Hotels approached the Delhi High Court claiming the relief of damages and injunction.

The paper had sought rejection of ITC's suit on ground of duplicity of proceedings and lack of locus. However, as the single judge dismissed its plea in 2016, the paper had preferred this appeal.

Refusing to interfere in the matter, a division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“From a comprehensive and holistic reading of the plaint filed at Delhi, it becomes evident that the Respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that they have been defamed, with the business trading governing reputation being adversely affected and lowered in the eyes of the general public…it becomes evident that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to conclude that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.”

ITC had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject ITC's suit on the following two grounds: (i) ITC lacks cause of action to file the suit; and (ii) the plaint is required to be rejected on account of non-joinder of YCD.

The High Court however observed that a Civil Court's power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is extremely limited and there is a difference between “failure” to disclose a cause of action in the plaint and “non-existence” of a cause of action available to the plaintiff.

In the case at hand, the Court found that ITC had clearly alleged that the paper had created a negative impression in the eyes of the public at large qua the actions of its then Chairman. “Such insinuations made in the article are claimed to be defamatory, vicious and libelous,” the Court noted.

It further observed that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC does not envisage rejection of the plaint on the question of locus standi of the Plaintiff. “Moreover, YCD and ITC Group companies are stated to be interlinked,” the Court said.

Appearance: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Ms. Riya Dhingra, Mr. Amer and Mr. Bhaskar Anand, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. L.K. Bhushan and Ms. Raashi Beri, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: ABP Pvt Ltd v. ITC Hotels Ltd & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1523

Case no.: FAO(OS) 288/2016

Click here to read order