38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Proceedings Against Ratan Tata, N Chandrasekaran [Read Judgment]

By LawStreet News Network      24 July, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Proceedings Against Ratan Tata, N Chandrasekaran [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court on July 22, 2019, quashed proceedings initiated against Tata Sons former chairman Ratan Tata, its current chairman N. Chandrasekaran and eight directors of the firm in a criminal defamation case filed by Nusli Wadia.

In December 2018, a Magistrate Court in Mumbai issued notices to Ratan Tata and others in the criminal defamation case filed by Wadia in 2016 after he was voted out of the boards of some Tata Group companies.

Tata and others then approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated against them.

A Division Bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre on July 22, 2019, quashed and set aside the proceedings.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Ratan Tata, submitted before the court that the defamation case was because of a fallout of a corporate dispute.

He said the entire case was led with complete non-application of mind.

The case is only a fallout of a corporate dispute between Ratan Tata and Nusli Wadia, who is a strong supporter of Cyrus Mistry, Singhvi argued.

On the other hand, Wadia, in his complaint before the Magistrate, claimed that Tata and others made defamatory statements against him after they removed Cyrus Mistry on October 24, 2016, as the group chairman of Tata Sons.

Wadia was on the board as an independent director of group companies like Indian Hotels Company, which runs the Taj group of hotels, TCS, Tata Motors and Tata Steel, among others. He was voted out by shareholders at a specially convened general meeting between December 2016 and February 2017.

Wadia said that he approached the court as he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondents (Tata and others) following his letters to them.

He, therefore, initiated criminal defamation proceedings against Tata and others under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Singhvi argued before the high court that what the complainant, Wadia, has termed as defamatory is wrong and not defamatory per se.

The November 2016 letters and minutes of the meeting circulated by Tata Sons to its group companies only sought for Wadias removal as he was acting against the companys interest, Singhvi said.

Judgment

On hearing both the parties, the High Court ruled that a company is well within its rights to remove a Director as per Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013, if it is found that he was acting against the interests of the company.

The court found merit in Singhvi's submission that there was non-application of mind on the part of the Magistrate in issuing notice. As noted in the judgment,

The Magistrate before issuing the process, has failed to take into consideration the conspectus of the matter and though it is the duty cast upon him to be satisfied before issuance of a process, he had concluded without any material being placed before him that the statement is defamatory.

The court observed that there was no prima facie defamation involved and that it could not find any actual harm caused to Wadia's reputation. Moreover, it also noted that the element of mens rea was absent.

It, therefore, allowed Tata's plea, ruling that, We conclude that the order passed by the magistrate is without application of mind and cannot be sustained and resultantly, we quash and set aside the impugned order.

[Read Judgment]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

delhi-court-rejects-plea-against-ayodhya-judgment-slaps-6-lakh-costs-on-advocate-mehmood-pracha
Trending Judiciary
Delhi Court Rejects Plea Against Ayodhya Judgment, Slaps ₹6 Lakh Costs on Advocate Mehmood Pracha [Read Judgment]

Delhi District Court dismisses plea challenging Ayodhya verdict, imposes ₹6 lakh costs on advocate Mehmood Pracha for filing frivolous litigation.

27 October, 2025 11:58 AM
cji-gavai-recommends-for-appointment-of-justice-surya-kant-as-successor
Trending Legal Insiders
CJI Gavai recommends for appointment of Justice Surya Kant as successor

CJI Gavai recommends Justice Surya Kant as his successor. Justice Kant to become the 53rd Chief Justice of India, serving from Nov 24, 2025 to Feb 9, 2027.

27 October, 2025 12:37 PM

TOP STORIES

delhi-hc-grants-interim-protection-to-kumar-sanus-personality-rights-restrains-unauthorised-use-of-voice-and-image
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Grants Interim Protection To Kumar Sanu’s Personality Rights, Restrains Unauthorised Use of Voice and Image [Read Order]

Delhi HC grants interim protection to Kumar Sanu, restraining unauthorized AI use of his voice, image, and likeness to safeguard personality rights.

24 October, 2025 11:04 AM
orissa-hc-restores-fathers-visitation-rights-says-child-entitled-to-love-and-affection-of-both-parents
Trending Judiciary
Orissa HC Restores Father’s Visitation Rights, Says Child Entitled To Love And Affection Of Both Parents [Read Order]

Orissa High Court restores biological father’s visitation rights, holding that every child is entitled to love and affection of both parents.

24 October, 2025 11:50 AM
centre-writes-to-cji-to-nominate-justice-surya-kant-as-successor
Trending Legal Insiders
Centre writes to CJI to nominate Justice Surya Kant as successor

Centre writes to CJI B R Gavai recommending Justice Surya Kant as the next Chief Justice of India; he is set to assume office on November 24, 2025.

24 October, 2025 07:53 PM
sc-quashes-uapa-arrests-holds-remand-courts-explanation-cannot-replace-written-grounds-of-arrest
Trending Judiciary
SC Quashes UAPA Arrests, Holds Remand Court’s Explanation Cannot Replace Written Grounds Of Arrest [Read Order]

Supreme Court quashes UAPA arrests, ruling that remand court’s explanation cannot substitute the mandatory written grounds of arrest.

25 October, 2025 11:10 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email