PG Chacko vs RK Jain - Judge vs Journalist - Clash of the Titans
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Mr. PG Chacko just retired as Judicial Member, CESTAT (Bangalore Bench) after anillustrious service of nearly 15 years in Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai and Bangalore. Mr.RK Jain is a recognised whistle-blower - recognised by the Supreme Court, an eminent publisher and editor and a crusader against ills of the tax administration. The Supreme Court in Indirect Tax Practitioners Association vs RK Jain - , Observed, "In our view, a person like the respondent can appropriately be described as a whistle blower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State…"
On 18.6.2012, RK Jain's Excise Law Times (ELT), in a report mentioned, "In the seized records, two entries are learnt to have been found regarding alleged payment of bribes of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.11 lakhs respectively for seeking favourable orders on stay applications from CESTAT, Mumbai. It is learnt that as per DRI report in both the cases the orders were passed by the CESTAT Bench of Shri P.G. Chacko and Shri K.K. Agarwal.…….."
CESTAT Member (as he then was) PG Chacko was aghast and filed a suit against RK Jain in a Bangalore Civil Court pleading for an injunction commanding the ELT Editor to apologise, an injunction to restrain the editor from publishing any defamatory statement and a damage of Re. 1/-.
On 9.1.2013, the City Civil Judge issued a temporary injunction restraining the ELT editor from publishing any defamatory statement or material calculated to defame the plaintiff - CESTAT Member.
RK Jain took the matter in writ petition to the Karnataka High Court. The High Court observed,
The impugned order, when perused, it is crystal clear that it is bereft of any reason. Trial Judge without reference to any material has assumed that the plaintiff has a prima facie case. He has not touched upon the question where the balance of convenience lies, nor has he dealt with the question, whether the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss, if no injunction is granted. He has not adverted to the other elements, such as acquiescence and whether the plaintiff has approached the court without any delay and finding recorded, is perverse and capricious. …… In this case, there is not only material irregularity in passing the impugned order, but also perverse approach to the matter.
The High Court quashed the order of the Civil Court and directed it to decide the case afresh.
While deciding the case afresh, the City Civil Court passed an elaborate order running into 38 pages replete with judicial decisions.
The case of the plaintiff is that he is a judicial member of the CESTAT; he has impeccable and unblemished reputation; no person raised any issue on his integrity and honesty.
The case of the defendant is that what he published in his article is true fact based on DRI Report and the defendant is whistle blower and a Public Spirited Person as described by the Supreme Court.
The Court observed, "It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a person having high image and reputation and good impression in the eye of Public."
The Court granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff (PG Chacko) against the defendant (RK Jain) restraining the defendant, its employees, concerns, companies, agents, or any person claiming through or under the defendant from printing, publishing or spreading in any manner whatsoever, whether in Excise Law Times or any other reporter or through any print media or otherwise any defamatory statement or material calculated to defame the plaintiff in any manner until disposal of the suit .
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.