Bloomberg Moves Delhi HC Challenging Order Directing Take Down Of Article Against Zee

The Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the Saket district court directing it to take down an article titled "India Regulator Uncovers USD 241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee" published on February 21 from its website.

The matter was presented before the bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora for urgent listing by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar. The bench agreed to hear the matter on Thursday.

The article claimed that the Securities & Exchange Board of India. (SEBI) had apparently "found a discrepancy of more than USD 240 million in the accounts of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd".

The Saket Court on March 1 stated that the plaintiff/Zee has made out a prima facie case for passing ad interim ex-parte orders of injunction, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/Bloomberg and irreparable loss and injury may be caused to the plaintiff, if the injunction as prayed for is not granted.

Following this, Bloomberg and its journalists were directed to take down the article from the online platform within one week of receipt of the order. Bloomberg and its reporters were further restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the aforesaid article in respect of the plaintiff on any online or offline platform. till the next date of hearing.

Arguing for ZEE, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal assisted by Naman Joshi and Guneet Sidhu contended that the article was "completely incorrect and false." Aggarwal contended that the defamatory Article had been published to malign and defame. ZEEL's reputation in a pre-meditated and malafide manner. In response to a query, Aggarwal said no question of truth as a defence could arise as SEBI had not rendered any finding against ZEEL. The SEBI had refused to comment.

Zee claimed that the contents of the article directly pertained to the corporate governance and business operations of the plaintiff and speculated the contents as truth. Consequent to the publishing of the article, the company and its investors suffered economically as the stock price of the company fell by almost 15 per cent because of the circulation of defamatory material.

The Bloomberg reporters have earlier also published several articles against Zee, but the present article has gone to the extent of alleging illegal fund diversion without any basis.

In his arguments, advocate Vijay Aggarwal further submitted that the law in India has always valued freedom of speech and expression but not at the cost of the reputation of another and when the two come in conflict, reputation prevails over publication.

Relying on the judgment in Baba Ramdev's case, Aggarwal argued that freedom of speech is not absolute in India unlike America and reasonable restrictions could be imposed on it.

In response to a query from the court that individuals and companies cannot be treated similarly when it comes to the reputation of the Plaintiff company can claim damages against Bloomberg, Aggarwal argued that a company, being a juristic person, is entitled to a reputation as any individual.

Advocate Aggarwal further contended that companies are equally, if not more deserving, of such protection as a loss to a company reverberates across the board to its promoters, employees, vendors, and most importantly lacs of common people who have invested their hard-earned money in the companies. In support of Aggarwal's contention, Joshi added that ZEE and its investors have suffered economically, as the stock price of the company fell by almost 15 per cent on account of the Article. 

(ANI)