- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17510 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI KRISHNA KANNUR S/O K.R.RANGANATH RAO R.R.KANNUR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M/S. PKN CAPS AND POLYMERS PVT. LTD., INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT HAROHALLI – 562 112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. DR. MADHU PRASAD W/O DR.Y.R.ANANTH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO. 116, 28TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070. OCCUPATION:DIRECTOR M/S.PKN CAPS AND POLYMERS PVT. LTD., …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMU S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 CALL FOR THE RECORDS PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12), BENGALURU IN O.S. NO.1519/2023. B. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/03/2025, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY LEARNED XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12), BENGALURU ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.1519/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 15-03-2025 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting an application/I.A.No.II filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of the plaint to present it before the Court having jurisdiction on the score that the Court at Bengaluru in which O.S.No.1519 of 2023 is instituted is dehors jurisdiction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 2. Heard Sri S. Sammith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a Director of M/s PKN Caps & Polymers Private Limited and the defendant, the Company represented by its Chief Executive Officer. On 20-01-2023 one B.Chandrashekar, a former Director sent his resignation through e-mail to the Board of Directors of the defendant/Company. The petitioner, Chief Executive Officer, replies to the e-mail accepting the resignation and reminding Sri B.Chandrashekar about non-compete of certain obligations. The plaintiff replies that she had not signed any non-compete agreement and mentioned “if we know it we will share it”. The defendant then replies to the plaintiff’s mail explaining the duties and ethics expected of the Director. The mail did not restrict to the plaintiff, but a copy of which marked to all and sundry. On this score, the plaintiff institutes O.S.No.1519 of 2023 on 03-03-2023 alleging that the e-mail sent by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 defendant caused her defamation by libel against the plaintiff and sought compensation for causing such defamation. The suit was instituted before the concerned Court. An application then comes to be filed by the defendant before the Court contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, as the Company is in Ramanagara and all communications were in Ramanagara, therefore, the suit ought to have been instituted before the concerned Court at Ramanagara. The application comes to be rejected by the impugned order. The rejection of the application has driven the defendant to this Court in the petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant would vehemently contend that the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC ought to have been answered by the concerned Court in favour of the defendant, as admittedly all the communications between the parties have happened within Ramanagara; the Company is at Ramanagara; the plaintiff was working at Ramanagara and, therefore, the suit was not entertainable before the concerned Court. He would seek that the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC be allowed and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 plaintiff be directed to present the plaint at the jurisdictional Court at Ramanagara. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court through the communications between the Company and the plaintiff, which according to him would clearly demonstrate that the copy of e-mail sent to the plaintiff is copied to several persons, some of whom at Bengaluru and some at Ramanagara. He would, therefore, contend that the Court at Bengaluru has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The defendant / Company is the petitioner. The plaintiff was a Director of the defendant/Company. The respondent/plaintiff seeks to resign from the post of Director of the Company and, therefore, communicates a letter of resignation through e-mail. The letter of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 resignation and the e-mail trail between the Company and the respondent/plaintiff is as follows: “From: Krishna Kannur Sent: 01 February 2023 11:54 To: Krishna Kannur Subject: FW: Resignation Regards Krishna Kannur Chief Executive Officer PKN Caps & Polymers Pvt Ltd Bangalore Visit us at: www.pkncps.com Ph: +91 966 338 5991 From:Krishna Kannur Sent: 23 Jan 2023 11:42 To: Madhu Prasad Cc:surfaceimprovements@gmail.com; kestur vasuki; maya jaideep; subbannakannur@gmail.com; Malini Kannur; karunakannur03@gmail.com; kmanjesh@gmail.com; kiranholla10@gmail.com Subject:RE: Resignation Dear Dr Madhu Prasad Many thanks for your timely response. However, I am surprised at the response by a tenured director who has steered the company over a decade, managed operations, documented quality manual - that includes the technical knowhow of PKN. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 In any case, directors, are appointed by shareholders, are supposed to safeguard the shareholder's interests. Definitely, company's and shareholders' interests are severely compromised when the companies' costs, operations, technical knowhow and business strategies are offered to external agencies without specific approvals from the board and the majority shareholders - including competing with the company. Please note, irrespective of existence of any written agreement, any act that is not in the interest of the company or its shareholder's, by any of the current and/or past directors, will definitely attract prosecution under sections 406, 420 and other sections of IPC - leading to arrests & imprisonments along with civil suits that will result recovery of the losses individually from such persons. The statement of yours impinges on the basic duties and responsibilities of a director. Your contention is illegal, misconceived, irresponsible, mischievous and immoral. Your query has reaffirmed that the company's interests are not safe in your hands as a director anymore. At this juncture, it is better you resign as director from the board. Regards Krishna Kannur Chief Executive Officer PKN Caps & Polymers Pvt Ltd Bangalore Visit us at: www.pkncps.com Ph: +91 966 338 5991 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 From: Madhu Prasad Sent: 21 Jan 2023 17:41 To: Krishna Kannur Cc:surfaceimprovements@gmail.com; Kestur Vasuki; maya jaideep; subbannakannur@gmail.com; Malini Kannur; karunakannur03@gmail.com;kmanjesh@gmail.com;kiranho lla10@gmail.com Subject: Re:Resignation Hello Mr Krishna, I am surprised at your mention of a non compete agreement. If you see the initial printed brochure Of PKN, you will find a line " if we know it we will share it". If I have signed a non compete agreement please forward me immediately a copy of this. Dr (Mrs) Madhu Prasad Sent from my iPhone On 21-Jan-2023, at 12:35 PM, Krishna Kannur <krishna.kannur@pkncnp.com> wrote: Dear Sir This is a shock to us. We miss your guidance and technical expertise at a crucial juncture at PKN. Of course we miss a sane and moderate voice in our board meetings. With a heavy heart we accept your resignation. Please note that all of us are bound by non-compete agreement, wherein we cannot approach our existing product portfolio as below: 1. Sintered pistons & cold forged pistons 2. Washers for pistons used in hydraulic shock absorbers - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 3. Cladding operations for pistons 4. PTFE seals, components and washers for compressors, hydraulic cylinders, flow control valves and similar applications Existing Customers for the above product portfolio: 1. Gabriel India Ltd 2. Endurance Technologies 3. Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd 4. Mando Automotive India Ltd 5. Rambal Ltd 6. Duroshox Pvt Ltd 7. Microtech Industries 8. Wipro Hydraulics Ltd 9. Hoerbiger India Pvt Ltd 10. Atlas Copoco (India) Ltd During our interactions with our customers we find some of the over enthusiastic directors have provided detailed costing of our products and have asked the customers to divert the orders that will be made under their supervision. Further, they have also offered to set up manufacturing facilities for the same. Hope you appreciate that it is not ethical and will not indulge or support such efforts. We are sure, we can approach you anytime for any clarifications on the decisions taken at the board during your tenure. Also, we will approach you for suitable guidance for any technological innovations we undertake in the future. Once again, with a heavy heart we accept your resignation and convey our best wishes to you and your family I am marking the mail to all directors, company secretary and statutory auditors for necessary compliance of the procedure - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 Dear Mr Kiran &Mr Manjesh - Looking for your advise for next steps Regards Krishna Kannur Chief Executive Officer PKN Caps & Polymers Pvt Ltd Bangalore Visit us at: www.pkncps.com Ph: +91 966 338 5991 From: Surface Improvements (India) Pvt. Ltd Sent: 20 Jan 2023 23:51 To: Krishna Kannur Cc:ananth prasad; Kestur Vasuki; maya jaideep; Madhu Prasad1; Tejasvini Prasad Subject:Re: Resignation The Board of Directors, PKN Caps & Polymers P Ltd, Bangalore Dear Sirs, My Tenure at PKN Caps & Polymers P Ltd I wish to resign from the position of Director on the Board of the company with effect from 31st January 2023. I thank the management for having given me an opportunity to be part of the think tank of the company and wish the company the very best in future. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 A hard copy of this is also being sent by courier. I request that my resignation be taken on record and the necessary filing with the ROC be also be completed at the earliest convenience. With best wishes Yours faithfully, B.Chandrasekhar” (Emphasis added) The last of the mail was on 23-01-2023. This is copied to about 10 people. The contents of the mail are as quoted supra. Whether it is defamatory or otherwise is a matter of trial. The issue that drives the plaintiff/respondent before the concerned Court is that it was defamatory. 7. An application comes to be filed by the present petitioner/defendant in I.A.No.II under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The concerned Court rejects the application on the following reasons inter alia: “…. …. …. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 18. Then, it establishes that the place of reading is also considered for jurisdiction. Then, if the defendant sent the said mail during office offers then, there is a chance of sending of such mail by using his electronic device anywhere in the world such as while traveling, at his residence or while attending the function as after the SOP period or lock down period due to the effect of COVID 19 pandemic, the new concept of “work from home” is introduced and so many companies though they have their office premises in Bangalore or Ramanagar or USA, but its functionaries or staff members or Board members or any person or authority connected to the company such as Manager, MD or CEO shall be working from the place where they are staying then, this Court thinks that in this case, as the defendant has not disputed about happening of the cause of action, then as discussed supra, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case as there is multiple communication through e-mail between plaintiff and defendants are found in the documents produced by the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff has paid huge court fee too. Next to that, as per cause title, both the parties are senior citizens and among them, the plaintiff is of the age of 73 years and defendant is of the age of 60. The defendant just crossed for age of senior citizen, but plaintiff is much older than the defendant. Hence, if considered it as the case of senior citizens, then the weightage is leaning towards the side of plaintiff as she is more senior than the defendant. 19. Further, the documents show the numerous e- mail correspondence between the parties and whether they are defamatory or not is the matter of trial and this IA is about the competency of jurisdiction of this court which is discussed under order on IA No.1 which attained finality. Further, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and above discussions, the plaintiff has already established about the jurisdiction of this court and on the other hand, the defendant failed to convince the Court as this Court has no jurisdiction as Section 19 and 20 of CPC are in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 connection to happening of cause of action through internet taken as in wider sense, hence, this court thinks that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case and hence, answers Point No.1 in the Negative. 20. Point No.2 :- For the foregoing reasons and as per negative answer to Point No.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the IA No.2 filed by the defendant is liable to be rejected and accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER IA No.2 filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected.” It is this order that drives the petitioner/defendant before this Court. 8. The issue now would be, whether in an electronic defamation or a cyber defamation which Court would get jurisdiction? The suit is instituted under Section 19 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice Section 19. Section 19 of the CPC reads as follows: “19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.—Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Illustrations (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi. (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.” Section 19 deals with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. If the wrong is done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in any of the said Courts. Illustration (b) makes it clear that ‘A’ residing in Delhi publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of ‘B’, ‘B’ may sue ‘A’ either in Calcutta or in Delhi. Section 19 borne interpretation by several High Courts. 9. The High Court of Delhi in the case of M/S FRANK FINN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS v. M/S SUBHASH MOTWANI1, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 1 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 17. The wrong within the meaning of Section 19 of the CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication. The defendants are confusing publication in the sense of printing, with publication as in the case of libel. The publication in the sense of a libel is not the mechanical act of printing of the magazine but is of communication of the libelous article to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant. In this regard also see Aley Ahmed Abdi v. Tribhuvan Nath Seth, 1979 All. LJ 542. If the magazine, as aforesaid, has a circulation at Delhi, then it cannot be said that the wrong would not be done to the plaintiff at Delhi and thus the courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act. A Division Bench in T.N. Seshan v. All India DravidaMunnetiraKazahagam, 1996 A1HC 4283 (AP) has taken the same view. Even if the test of Section 20 of the CPC were to be applied, even then the cause of action in part at least would accrue in Delhi. A Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in the The State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries, AIR 1975 Bombay 197 has held that the phrase wrong done in Section 19 would clearly take in not only the initial action complained of but its result and effect also and Section 19 is wide enough to take in those places where the plaintiff actually suffered the loss because of the alleged wrongful act. It was further held that the court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or suffered or sustained, would clearly answer the requirements of Section 19 for the purposes of the suits mentioned therein. 1 respectfully concur with the said view and unless Section 19 of the CPC is so interpreted, the purpose thereof would be defeated. Similarly, State of Meghalaya v. Jyotsna Das, AIR 1991 Gauhati 96 also held that wrong done includes and covers the effect of the act. The counsel for the defendants has relied upon RashtrivaMahilaKosh v. The Dale View, 2007 IV AD (Delhi) 593 to address the principle of forum non conveniens. With respect, if under the CPC the court has jurisdiction, I find it hard to hold that on the doctrine in international law of forum non conveniens the plaintiff can be non-suited. I, therefore, decide issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” (Emphasis supplied) - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 Again, the High Court of Delhi in the case of INDIAN POTASH LIMITED v. MEDIA CONTENTS AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 6. The reliance placed by the defendant of Section 20 of CPC is misplaced and the suit of the plaintiff is covered under Section 19 of the CPC which reads as under: “19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Illustrations (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi. (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.” 7. The above Section makes it abundantly clear that any suit for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed either within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or carrying on business or it may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff if the wrong done was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the event of publication of defamatory material, the wrong is done where the defamatory material is communicated and the moment the same is received by the persons, for whom it has been written. The publication of defamatory material against a person gives rise to a cause of action only when it is made known to the third party. The place of the third party and the place where it is known to a third party gains 2 2009 SCC OnLine Del.4410 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 importance. The plaintiff may be living at any place. If publication of defamatory material against him is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in books, newspaper is published, through electronic media on TV and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. It is the choice of the plaintiff to file the suit either at the place where publication has been made or the place where the defendant resides. Since in case of telecasting of a feature on TV by the channel which is for Indian audience and has all India viewers, the plaintiff has a choice to file the suit at those places where the plaintiff has been hit the most. In the present case, the plaintiff was supplying milk to many organizations and institutions and marketing companies in Delhi. The business of the plaintiff was allegedly hit by broadcasting of such publication in Delhi. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff lies in Delhi and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Dr. M. Karunanidhi, President of DravidaMunnetraKazhagam Party, (1995) 3 ALT 108, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had similar view and observed as under: “23. Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication. All the there defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. In the ordinary course of business the sending of books containing defamatory matter by post or otherwise from the place where it is published to book distributor of another place is publication of that matter at latter place, particularly/when it is read by them and/or others. Under these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the importance of the aforesaid book containing chapters 9 and 10 would have aroused the curiosity of at least the book-seller to go through it immediately on its receipt and, therefore, this type of communication amounts to publication at Madras. 24. As noted above, the excerpts of chapters 9 and 10 of the aforesaid book in local newspapers is distinct publication. Much publicity was given for the sale of the book as is evident from the affidavits of the defendants. Therefore, a presumption regarding awareness of the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 contents of the concerned newspapers can be raised against all the defendants because out of these defendants only the concerned matter would have been passed on to the newspapers concerned and thus all of them, prima facie, appear to be responsible alike for the publication of the alleged defamatory news item in the local newspapers.” (Emphasis supplied) Ten years later, the High Court of Delhi in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED v. TEJPAL SINGH SISODIA3, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 30. …. …. 30. Under Section 19 of the CPC, where the wrong done to the person is within the local limits of jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the plaintiff has a choice of instituting the suit in either of the two Courts and axiomatically in no other Court. The plaintiff herein thus, though has a choice under Section 19 of the CPC of suing the defendant in the Courts at Udaipur within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, but has chosen not to do so. The question for consideration is, whether this Court, on the averments in the plaint, qualifies as a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the wrong has been done to the person of the plaintiff. 31. The plaintiff herein, being a corporation, its person is deemed to be resident of and/or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the registered office of the plaintiff is and which is at Faridabad and not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Ordinarily a wrong to the reputation of a company would be done at its registered office. However, in todays day and age, with businesses of a company 3 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7607 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 spreading across countries and at least within the country, the company may have a reputation not only at the place of its residence i.e. its registered office but at each of such places where the company carries on business and/or where the goods and services are sold/provided by the plaintiff and wrong may be done to the reputation of the plaintiff at such places also. 32. The plaintiff herein also claims that wrong to the plaintiff has been done by the defamatory tweets of defendant, wherever the said tweets can be accessed across the globe. 33. I have wondered, that if such is the plea, whether a plaintiff in a suit for compensation for defamation by publication on internet, has an option under Section 19 of the CPC to sue the defendant anywhere in India. 34. In my opinion, no. Section 19, while vesting an option in plaintiff, only envisages, wrong done in jurisdiction of one Court and defendant residing in jurisdiction of another Court. Merely because, with the advent of trade and commerce, wrong done to the plaintiff can be across the country, cannot expand/widen the option vested under Section 19 in the plaintiff. Reading Section 19 so, would render it arbitrary, vesting an unguided option, capable of misuse in one of the parties to the lis i.e. the plaintiff and lead to “court shopping” and “libel tourism”. There is thus a need to construe/apply Section 19, in such situations, reasonably, so as not to put a plaintiff in such a suit, in a position disadvantageous to the defendant. 35. In my opinion, wrong by defamation, ordinarily would be done to a natural person, at the place of his residence, where he/she has a reputation and to an artificial person as a corporation/company, at the place of registered office of the corporation/company. In such case, the Court of the place of which a person is residence of or where the corporation/company has its registered office, would be a natural court which would have jurisdiction and in a suit instituted at such place, averment of publication without even a specific plea of ‘wrong - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 done’ with particulars of the persons in whose esteem the plaintiff has fallen may suffice. However, where a plaintiff in a suit for defamation, chooses to invoke the jurisdiction of an unnatural place i.e. a place of which that person is not a resident of and/or if a corporation/company in which it does not have its registered office, to invoke the jurisdiction of that Court, the plaint has to necessarily contain specific pleas of wrong done within the jurisdiction of that Court, by giving particulars of the persons in that jurisdiction, in whose esteem the plaintiff claims to have fallen and/or the loss or damage suffered. 36. What next has to be seen is, whether the plaintiff has pleaded wrong to have been done to its person, not at the place of its registered office, but within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plea of the plaintiff in this respect is in paragraph 37 of the plaint reproduced above, where the plaintiff has pleaded that wrong has been done to it within the jurisdiction of this Court because, (a) the defamatory tweets were uploaded and published on Twitter, a social media platform, “which has been and can be seen and accessed by the general public across the globe including in New Delhi”; and, (b) the Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff company Mr. Nikhil Nanda has been tagged in the tweets and the said Mr. Nikhil Nanda is resident of New Delhi. 37. According to paragraph 37 of the plaint itself, the defamatory tweets can be accessed, not only at New Delhi but “across the globe”. The question which arises is, whether in case of defamation alleged on such social media platform, the plaintiff under Section 19 has an absolute option to institute the suit anywhere across the globe or across the country. In my view, Section 19 of the CPC, though drafted in the pre-internet era, cannot be so interpreted. I reiterate that it is clear from a reading of Section 19 of the CPC that the legislative intent was to confine the choice of jurisdiction to only two Courts i.e. either where the defendant resides or carries on business or “where wrong was done”. Wrong of defamation on social media platform/internet cannot be said to have been done across the globe or across the country, permitting a plaintiff to choose jurisdiction of a Court, contest wherein would cause maximum harassment to the defendant, compelling - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 the defendant to give in to the demand of the plaintiff, even if unreasonable. No such intent can be imputed to the Legislature in enacting Section 19 of the CPC. 38. Even otherwise, no wrong can be held to have been “done” across the globe or across the country, wherever such social media platform/internet can be accessed. The Legislature has used the words “where wrong was done” and not “where wrong is likely to be done” or “wherever wrong is possible”. 39. Wrong to the person of the plaintiff by libel would be done not by the mechanical act of tweeting by the defendant of the content defamatory to the plaintiff but by communication thereof to at least one person other than the plaintiff or the defendant and knowing the plaintiff and in whose esteem, the plaintiff would fall by reading the defamatory tweets. Merely the tweets of the defendant, even if defamatory of the plaintiff, sitting on the internet, even if accessible anywhere, would cause no wrong of defamation to the plaintiff. Merely because the tweets or other material on any other social media/internet can be accessed anywhere, would not amount to a wrong being done to the plaintiff everywhere. A post on the internet which has not been downloaded, accessed and read, is like a defamatory letter in a sealed envelope and which letter cannot be said to have done any wrong of defamation till the seal is broken, the letter taken out and read and on which reading, the esteem in which the reader holds the plaintiff, falls. Wrong would be done only at the place where the said tweets are accessed and read by someone other than the plaintiff or the defendant and who knows the plaintiff. 40. The plaintiff, not only in para no. 37 of the plaint reproduced above, but in no other paragraph of the plaint has pleaded the said tweets of the defendant to have been downloaded, accessed and read by anyone in Delhi and in whose esteem the plaintiff has fallen by reading the said tweets. The plaintiff has merely pleaded that the defendant has tagged the twitter handles of famous news channels having large number of followers and also on the twitter - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 handles of various well-known individuals and organizations including ‘Prime Minister of India’, ‘Arun Jaitely’, ‘Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)’, ‘Escorts Group’, ‘Make In India’ etc. There is no averment in the plaint that the said tweets were downloaded, accessed and read by anyone in Delhi, causing wrong to the plaintiff. 41. There is no presumption in law or of fact, of content posted on the internet, though accessible, having been read. There is no publication of libel, till communication thereof is completed i.e. till the sealed envelope is opened and the libellous content thereof read. 42. I reiterate that the plaintiff has not given any such particulars in the plaint. No damage to the reputation of the plaintiff at Delhi has been pleaded. For that matter, it is not even the plea that the plaintiff has a reputation at Delhi. 43. I may further state that even in cases where the wrong done by the defamation is spread out across several jurisdictions, as would be the case with respect to a natural person enjoying a public stature and in the case of a company/corporation having business interest across several jurisdictions, in my opinion, the jurisdiction even then for institution of a suit for defamation would be of a Court where the maximum wrong is done and which generally in the case of a company/corporation would be the place where the registered office of the company/corporation is, unless it is pleaded that at the place of registered office wrong done is minuscule in comparison to wrong done at another place where the business interest largely is.” (Emphasis supplied) Considering most of the aforesaid judgments, the High Court of Madras, later in the case of G.I. RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 v. GOOMO ORBIT CORPORATE & LEISURE TRAVELS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED4, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 39. Karur Vysya Bank, the Bankers of the plaintiff restricted the financial facilities. Consequently, cause of action arises at Chennai to maintain the suit. In Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Prabhakar S. Pai reported in 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 103, it has been held that, “in cases of defamation, the statement made in Chandigarh have effect in Bombay and the Bombay Court has got jurisdiction to take cognisance of the offence.” In this case, though net publication has been made from Germany on the internet platform, it can be accessed anywhere in the world. But the effect has been felt by the plaintiff/appellant in Chennai as aforesaid. Hence, the Chennai Court has got jurisdiction. 40. Even otherwise, in the suit for compensation, for wrong done to a person or movable property, the suit is maintainable either within the jurisdiction of the defendant where he resides or carries on business or at the option of the plaintiff, where wrong is done to a person or to immovable property. Section 19 of CPC reads as follows: “19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movable. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. Illustrations (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi. 4 2020 SCC Online Mad 21424 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.” 41. In this case, though the Internet publication has been given from Germany, it was read by the plaintiff at Chennai and the effect was felt at Chennai as plaintiff suffers loss of repetition, business etc., Therefore, even as per Section 19 of CPC, the suit is maintainable before this Court. 42. The Honorable Delhi High Court in Frank Finn Management Consultants v. Subhash Motwani reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1049 has held that as the defendant made allegedly libelous articles in the magazine “Opportunities Today” published from Mumbai against the plaintiff which has got registered office at Delhi filed a suit for compensation. The defendants contended that the defendants are having office at Mumbai and published the article only at Mumbai and therefore, the Delhi Courts cannot have jurisdiction. Rejecting the argument, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the impugned article besides publication in the Magazine was also put by the defendants on its website and the magazine is circulated all over India and that the plaintiff noticed the said article in the magazine at Delhi and therefore, the Delhi Courts have got jurisdiction. It was further held that by putting the Magazine on the internet, the Magazine cannot be said to be having circulation only at Mumbai and concluded to be having circulations all over India and the wrong within the meaning of Section 19 CPC in an action for defamation is done by the publication. The Court further held that under Section 19 of CPC which is in relation to suits for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property and confers choice on plaintiff to sue either within the local limits of the defendant or where the wrong was done. Since the plaintiff therein read the Magazine at Delhi and the wrong was done at Delhi, it was held that the Delhi Court has got jurisdiction. The above judgment would categoricaly hold that where the effect is felt, the suit can be filed and where the wrong is done as per Section 19 CPC, the suit can be - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 filed. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder: “7. I have drawn attention of the counsel for the defendants to Section 19 of the CPC which is in relation to suits for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property and confers choice on plaintiff to sue either within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of jurisdiction of the court where the wrong was done. 9. The plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi on the plea that the plaintiff has its office at Delhi and the impugned article besides publication in the magazine was also put by the defendants on its website and the magazine is circulated all over India; that the plaintiff noticed the said article in the magazine at Delhi and, therefore, the cause of action had arisen at Delhi. 16. From the evidence aforesaid, it stands established that the magazine was being or could be subscribed at Delhi. The magazine itself states that it is available at all railway stalls and reputed outlets and the version of the defendant No. 2 that the reference was to railway stalls and reputed outlets within Mumbai only, without it being so printed is unbelievable. Thus, it stands established that the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi and the magazine has circulation at Delhi and is also put up on the website of the defendants. Even otherwise growing number of readers prefer to read newspapers and magazines via internet rather than in hard form. By putting the magazine on the internet, the magazine cannot be said to be for circulation within Mumbai only and is concluded to be having circulation all over India. The next question which arises is that if the magazine has circulation in Delhi, will any article in the magazine defaming a resident of Delhi, give jurisdiction, in an action for damages for defamation, at Delhi or the plaintiff will have to rush to Mumbai to sue the defendants.” 43. Similarly, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of State of Meghalaya v. Jyotsna Das reported in AIR - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 1991 Gau 96 held that wrong done includes and covers the effect of the act. 44. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents and Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 28 has dealt with cause of action in detail. In the said case the plaintiff filed a suit claiming damages at Delhi against the defendants, which is having registered office at Noida, UP to the tune of Rs. 11 Crores on the ground that the defendant telecasted a feature on its news channel making defamatory and false allegations of plaintiff's indulging into manufacturing synthetic milk. The contention of the defendant that no cause of action has arisen in Delhi as the defendant is carrying on business at Noida and from the way news was telecast was rejected by the Delhi Court and the said order was challenged before the Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if publication of defamatory material against the plaintiff is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in books, newspaper is published through electronic media on TV and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. Since the telecasting of a feature on TV by the channel which is for Indian audience and has all India viewers, the plaintiff has a choice to file the suit at those places where the plaintiff has been hit the most. In that case, the plaintiff was supplying milk to many organizations and institutions and marketing companies in Delhi. The business of the plaintiff was allegedly hit by broadcasting of such publication in Delhi and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff therein at Delhi is held to be maintainable. From the above, it is clear that the parties can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court where the effect is felt. Paragraph 7 of the order reads as follows: “7. The above Section makes it abundantly clear that any suit for compensation for wrong done to a person can be filed either within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or carrying on business or it may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff if - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 the wrong done was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In the event of publication of defamatory material, the wrong is done where the defamatory material is communicated and the moment the same is received by the persons, for whom it has been written. The publication of defamatory material against a person gives rise to a cause of action only when it is made known to the third party. The place of the third party and the place where it is known to a third party gains importance. The plaintiff may be living at any place. If publication of defamatory material against him is made at a place different from where the plaintiff lives or defendant lives, the Court at that place will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for compensation on the ground of defamation where the defamatory material is printed in books, newspaper is published, through electronic media on TV and the defamatory material directly hits the reputation demolishing the esteem and standing of the plaintiff. It is the choice of the plaintiff to file the suit either at the place where publication has been made or the place where the defendant resides. Since in case of telecasting of a feature on TV by the channel which is for Indian audience and has all India viewers, the plaintiff has a choice to file the suit at those places where the plaintiff has been hit the most. In the present case, the plaintiff was supplying milk to many organizations and institutions and marketing companies in Delhi. The business of the plaintiff was allegedly hit by broadcasting of such publication in Delhi. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff lies in Delhi and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner v. Dr. M. Karunanidhi, President of DravidaMunnetraKazhagam Party. (1995) 3 ALT 108 the Andhra Pradesh High Court had similar view and observed as under: “23. Publication of defamatory matter is communicated the moment the same is received by some person other than the person for whom it has been written. Publication of defamatory matter includes communication to third party. Defamatory matter printed in books and distribute for whatever purpose constitutes publication. All the three defendants must have known that the aforesaid books and, particularly, the contents of chapters 9 and 10 may - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 be read at least by the book sellers immediately on their receipt by them because of their curiosity. In the ordinary course of business the sending of books containing defamatory matter by post or otherwise from the place where it is published to book distributor of another place is publication of that matter at latter place, particularly/when it is read by them and/or others. Under these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the importance of the aforesaid book containing chapters 9 and 10 would have aroused the curiosity of at least the book-seller to go through it immediately on its receipt and, therefore, this type of communication amounts to publication at Madras. 24. As noted above, the excerpts of chapters 9 and 10 of the aforesaid book in local newspapers is distinct publication. Much publicity was given for the sale of the book as is evident from the affidavits of the defendants. Therefore, a presumption regarding awareness of the contents of the concerned newspapers can be raised against all the defendants because out of these defendants only the concerned matter would have been passed on to the newspapers concerned and thus all of them, prima facie, appear to be responsible alike for the publication of the alleged defamatory news item in the local newspapers.” 45. The above judgments also support the view of this Court that cause of action for the present suit arises at Chennai as the effect of the 2nd defendant net publication is felt and the suit is maintainable before this Court.” (Emphasis supplied) I am in respectful agreement with the findings rendered by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras. 10. On a blend of the law laid down by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras in the cases of FRANK FINN MANAGEMENT, INDIAN POTASH and G.I.RETAIL supra, - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 what would unmistakably emerge is that, when an application for defamation is sought for on a publication of libellous article, which is being read by other than the plaintiff or the defendant at any place, that place would get jurisdiction. The High Court of Delhi in the case of ESCORTS LIMITED would narrow down the jurisdiction to two places, one where the plaintiff resides or where the defendant Company has its registered office, not any place as was held in the earlier judgments. Under Section 19 of the CPC, where a particular wrong is done to a person within the local limits of jurisdiction of one Court, but the defendant carries business beyond the said local limits and comes within the jurisdiction of another Court, it is the choice of the plaintiff instituting the suit to institute the suit in either of the two Courts. 11. If on the bedrock of elucidation of law by the High Courts Delhi and Madras, the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered, the plaintiff/respondent had a choice to institute the suit either at Bengaluru or at Ramanagara. The plaintiff has chosen it to be instituted in Bengaluru. Therefore, no fault can be found with the choice of place of suing of the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30302 WP No. 17510 of 2025 plaintiff, in an electronic defamation or cyber defamation, where a copy is marked to all of whom holding offices or residing within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru or Ramanagara. Therefore, it was the choice of the plaintiff to sue either in Ramanagara or in Bengaluru. The choice of Bengaluru availed of by the plaintiff does not brood illegality qua jurisdiction. It is not dehors jurisdiction, but within jurisdiction. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17