- (1.) The plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged defamatory statement made by the defendant.
(2.) The plaintiff no. 1 is a manufacturer of couplings. The plaintiff no. 2 is its associate engaged in the business of export of products manufactured by the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiff no. 2 is a member of the Engineering Export Promotion Council. Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV) is an authorised certified classification agency. DNV has inspected and certified couplings manufactured by the plaintiff no. 1. According to the plaintiffs, they received an information by electronic mail (e-mail) from DNV on July 10, 2008 that the defendant who is a business rival of the plaintiffs, had complained about a coupling of the plaintiff no. 1 by an e-mail dated July 9, 2008 to DNV. DNV had forwarded the e-mail dated July 9, 2008 of the defendant to the plaintiffs on July 10, 2008. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had used the words "spurious manufacturer" to describe the plaintiffs. Such words in the context of the entire e-mail are defamatory. The plaintiffs having being defamed by such words, they seek damages. The defendant has filed a written statement. The defendant has denied the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs on one hand and the parent foreign company of the defendant and the defendant on the other hand, had disputes with regard to a trademark. Such disputes had been settled and a global settlement had been entered into between the parties and filed in a Court at Singapore. Such global settlement has since been acted upon.
(3.) The plaintiffs do not have right to use the name "Vulkan" or the Codes bearing EZ, EZS and EZR. The defendant having found the plaintiffs to market products subsequent to the global settlement with the Code EZ, which according to the defendant gives an impression that such product has been manufactured by the defendant, it had issued the email dated July 9, 2008 to DNV protesting against the action of DNV in granting a certificate to the plaintiffs for such products. Such e-mail was a confidential communication and in the nature of a complaint made by the defendant to DNV which is an authority. The defendant claims that every statement made in the e-mail dated on July 9, 2008 are true. The words "spurious manufacturer" have been rightly use to indicate that the plaintiffs have been trying to deceptively suggest that the products of the plaintiffs were those manufactured by the defendant and/or its parent company.;