INDU JAIN Vs. FORBES INCORPORATED
LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-338
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 12,2007

INDU JAIN Appellant
VERSUS
Forbes Incorporated Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gita Mittal, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff has raised interesting questions of law and facts relating to entitlement to injunction on a claim of breach of her right to privacy in the present application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of an ad interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from effecting publications relating to the plaintiff in their publication or posting information about her on their website.
(2.) THE suit has been filed against Forbes Incorporated, a company registered in the U.S.A. M/s Forbes Asia has been arrayed as defendant No. 2 which is also a company having its registered office at Singapore. The defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are the President and Publisher, Editor, Contributing Editor and the Wealth List Editor respectively of the defendant No. 2. It has been pointed out that defendant No. 5 Ms. Naazneen Karmali, the Contributing Editor of defendant No. 2 and Ms. Luisa Kroll, Wealth List Editor of defendant No. 2 have been in touch via e -mails with the plaintiff's representatives who had been repeatedly instructed not to carry any news article pertaining to the plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 7 to 11 are the President and Editor in -chief; Director; Chief Operating Officer; President and Publisher; and the Publisher respectively of the defendant No. 1. In order to appreciate the issues raised, it would be appropriate to set out the facts on record leading upto the filing of the present application. The plaintiff is the widow of Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain who was the erstwhile Chairman of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'BCCL'). After his death in February, 1999, the plaintiff was appointed as the Chairman of the company. Apart from such appointment, the plaintiff is stated to be engaged in various spiritual, social and philanthropic causes for a number of years.
(3.) IT is necessary to notice a preliminary objection raised by the defendant to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the suit. This objection is principally based on the fact that none of the defendants are residing in or work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and consequently, it has been urged that this Court would not have jurisdiction on the subject matter of the suit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.