Case Summary
M/s. The south Indian Bank Ltd. filed a suit against M/s. Galaxy Zoom India P.Ltd. for publishing false and defamatory articles regarding the bank. The court found that the defendant's statements were unverified and harmful to the bank's reputation.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction to remove defamatory publications.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant and ordered the removal of defamatory publications.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff was entitled to relief as the defendant published unverified news that was defamatory.
The plaintiff was entitled to relief as the defendant published unverified news that was defamatory.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff was entitled to relief as the defendant published unverified news that was defamatory.
The plaintiff was entitled to relief as the defendant published unverified news that was defamatory.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence on record shows that the plaintiff is suffering as a result of such statements being there in the public. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as against the defendant directing the defendant to remove these links and posts.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: I.A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is hereby passed restraining the defendant from making and circulating any defamatory statements against the plaintiff as stated in the video and publication dated 24.12.2021 and 28.12.2021.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M/s. The south Indian Bank Ltd.
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s. Galaxy Zoom India P.Ltd.
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Print out of Publication in URL https.//www.facebook.com., Office copy of the lawyer notice.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.N Sivasankaran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sunil Shankar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Unnikrishnan S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Bimala Baby
- Appearance Type
- Ex parte
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from making and circulating defamatory statements.
Evidence:
I.A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is hereby passed restraining the defendant from making and circulating any defamatory statements against the plaintiff as stated in the video and publication dated 24.12.2021 and 28.12.2021.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Mandatory injunction to remove defamatory videos and publications.
Evidence:
A decree of mandatory injunction is passed as against the defendant to remove the defamatory video and publications mentioned in the list appended in the paragraph No.9 of plaint.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to recover costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
In view of the facts and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Print out of Publication
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing a publication made by the defendant on Facebook on 24.12.2021.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Print out of Publication
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing a publication made by the defendant on Facebook on 23.12.2021.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Print out of the publication
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document related to another publication by the defendant dated 28.12.2021.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Pendrive containing the youtube videos
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Pendrive that contains videos published by the defendant which are considered defamatory.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Office copy of the lawyer notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent from the plaintiff's lawyer relating to the defamatory publications.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Returned Postal envelope
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Envelope that was returned, possibly linked to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Computer print of Statement of account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Statement of account pertaining to the banking operations of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Certification Under Section 2(8)(b) R/w Section 2 A of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certification required for evidentiary purposes relating to bank records.
Reference:
Ext.A7(a)
Document Type:
Computer printout of statement of gold loan opened
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document concerning the statement of a gold loan related to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Certification u/s. 2(8)(b) R/w section 2A of the Bankers Books evidence Act, 1891
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional certification related to bank records necessary for the case.
Reference:
Ext.A8(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Defamation
Case Code
Case between M/s. The south Indian Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Galaxy Zoom India P.Ltd. regarding mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between M/s. The south Indian Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Galaxy Zoom India P.Ltd. regarding mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction.