IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR HYDERABAD INDIA 500074

O.S.No. 122 /12 ,700/12Between:Mr. Pradeep Kumar ManukondaS/o Varahala Babu ManukondaAged 32 years, Occ: Network security analystR/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Sec-bad - 500056.  ..Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERGS/o Edward Zuckerberg, aged about 27 years,Occ: CEO of Facebook,Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 United States of America

Hyderabad address of Facebook,Mr.Mark Zuckerberg ,M/s Facebook , B 14, Opus Towers,Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

2)M/s Facebook rep.byMs. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081                      …Defendants

SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF USD 1,621,913PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 AND UNDER ORDER

7 RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC

Description of the Plaintiff:

The plaintiff is Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda  S/o Varahala Babu

Manukonda  Aged 32 years, Occ:IT consultant  R/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan

Apartments,  Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Sec-bad – 500056. The

address of the Plaintiff for the purpose of service of all summons, notices ,

processes and orders is that their counsel Mr. S.Siva Shanker, Moshe Marpu,

B.Vijaya Kumar, M.N.Sreelatha-Advocates, 407/6-1-9 & 10, Padmarao

nagar, Secunderabad-500 025.

Description of the Defendants:

The Defendant particulars have been shown in the above cause titles. For

the service of summons, the address of the Defendants is the same as

mentioned in the cause title.

 

1) It is submitted that Plaintiff went to USA to work in New York in 2010 in

EMC Company and after working for some time, Plaintiff shifted to

California and worked in Pillar Data System, San Jose and subsequently D1

sent a mail that Facebook require a Data Centre Security Analyst and

having solicited the services of Plaintiff, Plaintiff approached D1 in

California USA in the first week of December 2010 and applied for Data

Center Operation (as a Security Analyst) and Plaintiff had an interview with

the Project Director Mr. Chris. When the project Director questioned

Plaintiff with regard to the loopholes of the Face-book and Plaintiff

informed that there are many loopholes and submitted as follows:

2) It is further submitted that Plaintiff developed a Pet Project under the

name IDEAS (Inception and Design e-commerce Social networking under

the Website “www.myfacebooksocialnetwork.com) and informed about the

same and the Project of Plaintiff reveals the fake users count and multiple

users count and Plaintiff revealed that Facebook is having fake user count

and multiple user count and also there is no deletion option in the face book

and even minors are opening the Facebook etc. and immediately the Project

Manager got puzzled and informed the D1 i.e. Mark Zuckerberg.

3) It is further submitted that suddenly some official from the Facebook

came to the house of Plaintiff in the first week January 2011 and

threatened Plaintiff with dire consequences if Plaintiff is not agreed to

their terms and

conditions and should not develop competition to Facebook, otherwise they

brand Plaintiff as Hacker and Stalker and since Plaintiff is from

Hyderabad and studied in Osmania University and having family with two

children, Plaintiff agreed under coercion and made forced handwritten letters

and also signed Non Disclosure Agreement under threat, which contains

that Plaintiff should not come up with his project work and they did not even

give a single minute to read the documents and forced Plaintiff to sign non

disclosure agreement and the contents of the Non-Disclosure Agreements

are not known to Plaintiff and no consideration or any amount was paid to

Plaintiff assuming without admitting non discloser agreement contains some

consideration and purely under coercion and fear of life as the unknown

persons were bearing & flashing the guns, Plaintiff signed those papers.

After signing those papers D1 went to superior court in California at county

of Santa Clara and obtained a temporary restrained order (TRO) on 1-2-2011

against Plaintiff that Plaintiff should not visit their office and they also

fabricated declaration from the Logistic Managers Mr. Todd Sheets and also

fake Gmail’s which Plaintiff never generated nor sent by Plaintiff’s Gmail

account. By filing some more fake documents and declarations, D1 obtained

permanent Restrain Order against Plaintiff on 15-2-2011 vide Case No. 111

CH003483 restraining Plaintiff by 300 meters that he should not visit the

Face book nor the office etc.. and subsequently the entire US press has come

to know that D1 i.e. Mark Zuckerberg has a obtained restraint order and

claimed that Plaintiff as a stalker and hacker and harassing Mark Zuckerberg

and his sister and girlfriend and it is only fictitious claim of D1 that Plaintiff

has approached D1 and harassing D1 and when Plaintiff has gone to US for

work and being from software side, he expressed his opinion about the

loopholes of Facebook and fearing that Plaintiff might start a rival company

with better options than Facebook is possessing, they hatched a plan and

forced Plaintiff not to develop a rival company and hence they planned to

get a Court order and accordingly they mislead the Superior Court, Civil

Division, 191 N.First St. San Jose, CA95113 and obtained the permanent

Restraint Order till 2014 that Plaintiff should not visit their office by 300

meters and should not even approach the website by 300 meters and the

order was obtained without any application of mind and when the person

who has gone to USA for better prospects and the forced letters reveals that

Plaintiff has stooped to such low level of begging for his mother’s treatment

etc. are all false and it can palpably seen and all the materials placed before

the US court is made up of fiction and imagination and D1 forgot that

Plaintiff is a Software Professional and he is having a job and when they

solicited for his service, he went to Face Book and informed about the

loopholes and simply knowing the loopholes, D1 jumped to the conclusion

that Plaintiff might be a potential competitor and as D1 is really having high

volume of fake user count and if it is established in the public, it will effect

D1’s brand name and also effect D1’s company in the stock market and

hence put Plaintiff into inconvenience and when the US press wanted to

know from Plaintiff side version, he immediately informed the press that he

will inform only to the judge of the concerned Court and he cannot reveal

anything to the press just to avoid direct conflict with D1 and the First one’s

officials came to the house of Plaintiff and threatened that he should go back

to the India otherwise his life will be in danger and Plaintiff has come to

know that D1 obtained a ex-parte orders based on the documents executed

under coercion.

4) It is further submitted that he returned to India on 5th March 2011 in under

fear of his life and family and Plaintiff obtained a copy right in the month of

May 2011 about his Pet Project “IDEAS” by engaging an Attorney in USA

and the copy right was applied in California and accordingly Registrar of

Copy Rights, CA, USA has accorded sanction and patented the project of

“IDEAS” of Plaintiff on 2-5-2011 vide Regn No. TXU001730778 and

Plaintiff also applied for the copy rights to the Indian Government vide No.

9268/2011 dated 5-8-2011 and is awaiting for registration as it takes 18

months in India to get it registered and immediately D1 has come to know

and D1 started pressurizing Plaintiff and portrait as AL-QAIDA worker in

Face book by exhibiting Plaintiff’s photo and wrote that his employers are

Al Qaida, he is religious is Islam, etc. the picture of Plaintiff in the Facebook

is very foul and nasty and disgusting and also stalker in the face book and

also Plaintiff started receiving the phone calls from unknown persons

suspected to have been from D1’s side after registration of the Copy rights

of ‘IDEAS”.

5) It is further submitted that on 9-07-2011 when Plaintiff was going to

Karimnagar, some unknown four muscleman came at Shamirpet and

attacked Plaintiff and besides causing physical harm and they took away the

laptop and cell phone and wanted to cause more harm and Plaintiff could

escape the attack with the help of RTC bus passengers and immediately

alerted the Shamirpet police and lodge a complaint vide FIR No. 180/2011

dated 9-07-2011 and the case is under investigation and Plaintiff suspects

that the defendants must have been having a role in the attack.

6) It is further submitted that another attack has taken place on 06-08-2011

in Hyderabad and Plaintiff was stabbed from back side and he was admitted

in the Apollo hospital at Jubilee hills, Hyderabad ,AP ,India, and later on

Jubilee Hills police were informed and they booked a FIR vide 366/2011 and

the case is under investigation and all these personal attacks were directly

suspected to have been fuelled by D1 & D2 as Plaintiff is not having any

enemies or there was no motive for other persons to attack Plaintiff and the

only suspicion is on D1&D2.

7) It is further submitted that because of branding Plaintiff as Stalker and Al-

Qaida Worker in the Web world, Plaintiff is viewed as suspicious character

and his whole reputation is at stake. It is well said that “A man’s reputation

is his property and is more valuable than any other tangible asset.

Every man has the right to have his reputation preserved. It is

acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person. It is a jus

in rem, a right good against all the people in the world. The degree of

suffering caused by loss of reputation far exceeds that caused by loss of

any material wealth. The Law of Defamation protects reputation.

Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s

reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking

members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him.

Further D1 is having a Branch in India to do Indian Operations of

Facebook and the same is located in Hyderabad at Cyber Towers, Mind

Space, Hi-tech City, Madhapur, RR District and Facebook of Hyderabad

Branch, with the

Directions of D1, has defamed Plaintiff by showing Plaintiff as Stalker and

Hacker and under those circumstances, Plaintiff filed the suit before the

Hon’ble District Judge, RR District Court vide OS No. 122/12 to declare

that Plaintiff is not a Stalker & Hacker.

8) It is further submitted that because of the intervention of Hon’ble

District Judge, RR District Court orders vide I.A.No.446 of 2012 in

O.S.No.122 of 2012, the profile of Plaintiff were deactivated but only

partially for some time as it had again surfaced on the web in the first week

of June 2012. By allowing this to happen D1 & D2 has played mischief and

the Plaintiff’s new profile was created with the same profile details and

photograph but with a different name and this time identifying Plaintiff as

Drake Smith. On a deeper probe into the details, Plaintiff came to know that

already this profile was created May 2011 and this was not known to

Plaintiff and only it came to surface in the month of June 2012 after passing

the restraint order in IA No. 446/12 in OS No. 122/12.

 9) It is further submitted that Plaintiff’s case is being heard in court of

Hon’ble Principle District Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court at Hyderabad

and proceedings are on-going but in spite of this, D1 and D2 had created

another third profile, and this time stated Plaintiff as Second in Command

for Jaish-e-Muhammad and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen outlaw

organizations!!! This re-occurrence of Plaintiff’s profiles in D1’s website

shows D1 is having utter disrespect to the court orders and it gives the strong

impression that D1 is not serious about Indian Judiciary and its principles of

rule of law and Indian judiciary’s effectiveness.

10) It is further submitted that Plaintiff strongly believes and suspect that

there is every possibility that D1 &D2 have fabricated or manipulated

Facebook server records, which register the new and existing profiles and

D1 may innocently claim that somebody had created such profiles falsely as

D1 have the administrative privileges to D1’s servers and there is less

possibility that an outsider will be able to do the profile Management and

therefore D1 & D2 are directly responsible for creation of these false

profiles of Plaintiff and spoiled his career, reputation, and his employment

opportunities and also loss to his website.

11) It is further submitted that D1&D2 are hatching a conspiracy against

Plaintiff to malign Plaintiff as he believes the main reason for attacks on his

person and also on his name online and offline is that D1 7D2 are having

some personal differences with Plaintiff as Plaintiff may become rival to the

Facebook and would compete D1&D2.

 12) It is further submitted that when Plaintiff launched his website under

the domain registration name www.myFacebooksocialnetwork.com  on

April 2011, his website was rated and ranked 10760471 out of 22 crore

websites worldwide. The initial value of website was assessed with

estimated value of $234 (Rs 12968/-). This rating was initially given my

Alexa, Internet Company (Amazon). But due to D1’s constant attacks on

his person, and online and offline, Plaintiff was not able to have his website

running active. If Plaintiff had continued to run the website till this day, he

could have competed with the face book and could have fetched substantial

amounts of dollars, but things turned ugly when Plaintiff was assaulted twice

in the month of July and August 2011. Due to this sudden attacks Plaintiff

have to stop his website operation, and he lost his laptop which contained

valuable source code of his Project work, for which Plaintiff got a

copyright issued on his name from the California state of USA.

13) It is further submitted that Plaintiff belong to the Information

Technology arena and he is well aware of the importance of social

networking site like Facebook. When he tried to apply for job position in the

reputed IT companies, the hiring authority are asking Plaintiff about profiles

generated in Facebook and when Plaintiff try to explain the whole thing

about Facebook, the hiring companies are hesitating in hiring Plaintiff

because its company policies to check the credentials of the employee. If

such things are posted about Plaintiff in the Facebook, Plaintiff would not be

able to convince the employers and keep his reputation clean. It is well said

that reputation takes a long time to build; but it takes no time to break. There

is saying “if D1 tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, It will be

believed to be true fact!" Because of D1’s frequent lies in the face book

that Plaintiff is a hacker and stalker and belongs to  Al –Qaida, Jaish-e-

Muhammad and Harkat- ul- Mujahedeen man etc.. it would be difficult to

convince the potential employers about Plaintiff’s credentials.

 14) It is further submitted that when Plaintiff decided to associate with

some companies who are interested in Plaintiff’s project work, the

defamatory information from the Facebook about Plaintiff are causing

massive damage to his reputation and character as well as to his project

work. Plaintiff is not getting good offers by companies from USA and

Singapore or even in India as the companies are checking Plaintiff’s profile

and they are mislead by Facebook profile which is stated Plaintiff as Al –

Qaida, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Harkat- ul- Mujahedeen man. This type

of postings were seen by the IT employers and Security Agencies, the image

Plaintiff was completely spoiled and Plaintiff lost his job, not getting job in

India and abroad and also not able to do the website business and because of

D1’s rash and intentional acts , Plaintiff suffered heavily.

15) It is further submitted that D1 & D2 misrepresented that the court

Order passed in IA No. 446/12 in OS No. 122/12 of the District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District Court was lapsed and court refused to extend the

restraining order, and this was briefed by none other than D1’s own

counsel Mr.K.Vivek Reddy who represented D1 in the court and this was

reported in "Times of India" dated on March 4 2012 and whereas actually

the order of the court is still subsisting as on today. Thus D1 &D2 have

defamed Plaintiff in number of ways and also twisted the facts in a

distorted fashion and gave erroneous version in the newspapers about

the court orders.

 16) It is further submitted that a conspiracy act is cooking around Plaintiff,

because D1 don’t want Plaintiff to come up with Project work nor D1 want

Plaintiff working for their competitor as his work eliminate the fake and

anonymous users flooding in Facebook and directly and indirectly D1 have

stopped Plaintiff’s growth and his survival is at stake because of D1’s rash

and negligent acts.

17) It is further submitted that with these kind of profiles against Plaintiff

and flooding in the online world with no guarantee to stop, both his

professional and private life  are at stake and  affecting  and  it’s much more

painful to see that D1 is using Plaintiff’s surname which is also affecting

even his family members too and Plaintiff’s brother is unable to get any

matrimonial alliance because of D1’s posting and the surname it carries to

his brother and the entire society frequently speaks with suspicion and looks

down as if Plaintiff is a criminal and has committed a crime. It’s agonizing

to see them go through all of this which is causing mental agony to Plaintiff

and also his family members.

18) It is further submitted that this is the second time D1 &D2 has published

statements in public which are false and unreal, the statements are about the

Character and reputation of Plaintiff which carry malicious intentions to

harm Plaintiff. D1 & D2 have willfully and intentionally spoiling Plaintiff’s

reputation and also causing mental agony.

19) It is further submitted that D1 & D2 have published Plaintiff’s profile

and clearly mentioned that he praised the radical movements supporting

the hardcore terrorist like Abu Hamza and Dawood Ibrahim who are the

most wanted in the world. It clearly states that D1&D2 want to humiliate

Plaintiff in every aspect and portray Plaintiff in every possible way which is

wrong and negative. By stating these utter lies that Plaintiff had some sought

of connection or influence of these anti-social people, D1&D2 wanted to

prove that Plaintiff is mentally ill person. Moreover D1&D2 have not even

spared Plaintiff’s marriage life stating that he is divorced and false

impression goes to the people who know Plaintiff. People reading or

watching them, particularly young people are bound to believe what they

read or watch. In Plaintiff’s case, D1&D2 both spoiled his reputation,

respect and most important the character assassination. All of this which

Plaintiff cannot assess in terms of any value as they form his existence in

this world and the loss of character is immeasurable and incalculable.

 20) It is further submitted that to establish in the internet business with the

product he was developing and bring good appreciation to the country and

revenues to the Government of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh

and D1 & D2’s are hindering that to happen. In any business, two things are

very vital – one being brands name and the other reputation. With this

relentless damage being done to Plaintiff, Plaintiff lost jobs which he would

have gainfully employed nor do the internet business successfully. Under

those circumstances only damages would meet the ends of justice to Plaintiff

and Defendants have done the following acts.

21) It is further submitted that D1 & D2 had published his

graphical representation of his photo in the Facebook as  Al –Qaida, Jaish-

e-Muhammad and Harkat- ul- Mujahedeen man and first one obtained

false court order against Plaintiff and terrorized to leave the USA and

because of D1, Plaintiff left the USA at gun point and D1’s court orders

are self explanatory and because of D1’s court orders and threatening,

Plaintiff had left the USA and his earnings were lost and no other

employer is willing to take because of publications in the FACE BOOK

and his future earnings are also were lost and benefits of increments were

deprived and because of D1, Plaintiff lost the business in the web

community and D1 have made arrangements to stab Plaintiff twice in

Hyderabad and traumatized his life and caused heavy mental agony both

in USA and also in India and defamed Plaintiff before obtaining the

restraint order from the Hon’ble District Judge, RR District and also after

obtaining restraint order by false publications in the news paper and also

publication of Plaintiff’s photo in the FACE BOOK as Drake Smith and

on account of all these aspects, Plaintiff lost heavily and his life is at stake

and because both of D1 & D2 had committed the damages, the following

damages are calculated which are as follows:

Quantum of Damages:

1)a)Loss of Salary right from January 2011 i.e. USD 9200 Per Month till

July 2012 i.e. 18 months = USD 1,65,600/-

i.e. 1.65,600=00 X55= Rs. 91,08,000=00

b) Future loss of earnings: Taking the average retirement age at 60 years, the

loss of future earnings is 27 years.

USD 1, 10,000X27= 29, 70,000x55= Rs.16, 33, 50,000=00

2. Apart from that there will be a regular 10% hike in salary every year

according to any company standards

     (16, 33, 50,000 = 10% makes 1, 63, 50,000 (1.635 crore)

3. Mental agony: Rs.10, 00, 00,000=00 (Rs.10 crores)

4.Loss from Website business:

 Average 17 unique user registration are done on daily basis (17 x 30 days =

510 users/month) which makes user registration per year (17/day x 365

days = 6205 users/year)

And in any internet domain business, number of user registration generates

revenue source for the business (ex...Ads)  and with this proportion if i run

my website business for 10 -15 yrs  

  (6205 x 15 years = 93075 users) and if single user makes a revenue of 5

USD in these tenure  

 5x 55= 275 (93075 x 275 = 25595625) = 2, 55, 95,625=00 

BRIEF DETAILS:Loss of Salary Rs. 91,08,000=00Future earnings: = Rs . 16,33,50,000=00Future increments: 1.63,00,000=00Mental agony : 10,00,00,000=00Loss from websiteBusiness: 2,55,95,625=00 ----------------------- Total damages Rs. 31,43,53,625 or $ 57,15,520=00 taking $ @ Rs.55

Therefore this suit for damages against the Defendants and however

the Plaintiff is not having money to pay the court fee and he could arrange

only Rs. 9 lakhs with his personal savings, borrowing from his friends and

selling some jewelery etc. and therefore the Plaintiff is restricting his claim

of damages of Rs.9 Crores only. Hence this suit.

22) JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CLAIM OF DAMAGES OF Rs.9 CRORES

It is well said that “A man’s reputation is his property and is more

valuable than any other tangible asset. Every man has the right to have

his reputation preserved. It is acknowledged as an inherent personal

right of every person. It is a jus in rem, a right good against all the

people in the world. The degree of suffering caused by loss of reputation

far exceeds that caused by loss of any material wealth. The Plaintiff’s life

plans have been shattered by the Defendants and they have defamed in all

aspects and D1 went to the Superior court-California and obtained false

restraint order against Plaintiff and at the threat of his life, the Plaintiff was

forced to come to India and D1’s Court order against the Plaintiff clearly

establishes the harassment of the D1 and D1 spoiled the life of Plaintiff in

US. Having came to India, D1 did not leave the Plaintiff alone and posting

of Plaintiff’s profiles along with the Wall Posters and linking Plaintiff to Al-

Qaida ,Jeshi Mohammed and other terrorists groups, left very bad reputation

of the Plaintiff. It is needless to say that the photograph of the Plaintiff was

put in the Facebook on different names i.e. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda,

Manukonda Pradeep Kumar, Drake Smith etc… each time, the plaintiff

is linked to one terrorist group or the other and this posting of the Plaintiff’s

photo and Wall postings left very bad reputation among the employers and

the reputation of the plaintiff has completely gone down in the eyes of

society and by the postings, the entire family of the Plaintiff suffered badly.

The postings have caused much mental agony.

23) Further when the Plaintiff has filed the OS No.122/12 before this

Hon’ble Court and obtained the restraint order in IA No. 446/12 against

Defendants that they should not do any act either overtly or covertly which

in any way affects the reputation of the Plaintiff and intrude into his privacy

and while this restrain order is valid till the disposal of the main suit and

whereas the Defendants and his counsel gave the paper statement in Times

of India on 4-3-2012 that the Hon’ble District Court refused to extend the

order after initial time frame has lapsed which is totally false and defaming

the Plaintiff and the Defendants and his Counsel have done immense

damage to the reputation of the Plaintiff and again posted another posting in

the name of Drake Smith with the photo of Plaintiff and this has come to the

knowledge in the month of June 2012 after passing the restraint order in IA

No. 446/12 in OS No. 122/12.

24) The Plaintiff is having a status in the society and he is a software

engineer and his salary was nearly Rs. 91,08,000=00 and because of posting

of false profiles in the Facebook, the future earnings of the Plaintiff of Rs.

16,33,50,000=00 is lost and also he lost future increments of Rs.

1,63,00,000=00 and had the Defendants had not defamed the Plaintiff, he

would have been living peacefully and would have been happy. The Plaintiff

undergone both physical pain and mental agony and in view of his

reputation and status in life, he is claiming Rs. 10 crores for the mental

agony. Further several employers who sent the call letters to the Plaintiff and

on coming to know about the bad profiles created by Defendants in

Facebook, not inviting the Plaintiff and denying the employment

opportunities and thus Defendants are responsible for heavy loss of life for

the Plaintiff. In over all, though the amount of Rs. 31 crores is estimated

towards the loss of earnings and loss of reputation and mental agony, the

Plaintiff is claiming only Rs. 9 crores in all accounts against the Defendants

and Defendants are liable to pay Rs. 9 crores in all counts for defaming the

Plaintiff.

25) CAUSE OF ACTION AND LIMITATION :

The cause of action arose when the Defendant No.1 posted bad things about

the Plaintiff in Face book in the month of May 2011 and termed the Plaintiff

as Stalker and Al-Qaida worker and when the Plaintiff was continuing his

pet project which is rival to Facebook, the Plaintiff was attacked on 9-7-

2011 and his Laptop and Cell phone was stolen which contains valuable

data. Again the Plaintiff was stabbed from behind on 6-8-2011 and on both

the occasion, the Plaintiff had reported to the police and Crime No. 180/11

of Shamirpet and Crime No. 366/11 of Jubilee Hills Police Station were

registered and because of bad posting about the Plaintiff in Facebook as

Stalker and hacker and Al-Qaida worker, the Plaintiff is portrayed as bad

person, Plaintiff’s reputation was spoiled. Further the Plaintiff has filed the

declaratory suit before the Hon’ble District Judge, RR District on 2-2-2012

vide OS No. 122/12 and obtained restraint order on 7-2-2012 vide IA No.

446/12 and in spite of restraint order by the Hon’ble District Court, the

Defendants have again defamed the Plaintiff as Drake Smith which was

created by the Defendants in the Facebook with the same UID (user ID) and

defamed and linked the Plaintiff to Al-Qaida worker and this posting was

created in the month of June 2012 and because of this posting after passing

the restraint order by the Hon’ble District Judge, RR District, this was

known to the Plaintiff. Further another posting was done against the

Plaintiff in the face book in the name of “ Manukonda Pradeep Kumar” and

this profile was created and linked the plaintiff to Jeshi-mohammed and this

was seen by the Plaintiff on 19-7-2012 and the whole reputation of the

Plaintiff was spoiled and Defendants have portrayed that the Plaintiff is

fighting against India and he is extremist and divorcee which is all false and

incorrect and because of these postings, the employers are denying the

opportunities of employment. In all the postings in the Facebook, the

Plaintiff’s photograph remains the same.

26) Under those circumstances, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice on 21-7-2012

to the Defendants and claimed Rs. 31 crores as damages and the Defendant

No.2 had received the Legal Notice on 24-7-2012 and did not choose to send

any reply. Whereas the legal notice sent to D1 both to Hyderabad address

and US address but the postal cover sent to Hyderabad address was refused

to be taken by D1 and the postal cover was returned on 24-7-2012 and it is

deemed that the notice to D1 was served as he refused to take the notice.

Further the legal notice was received by D2 who is a subordinate to D1 and

immediately D2 must have scanned the legal notice and sent to D1 and D1 is

having the knowledge of legal notice but did not choose to give reply nor

denied the allegations of the Plaintiff and hence the Defendants are guilty of

the charges and they are liable for the damages. Hence the cause of action to

file this suit for damages and the same is filed within the limitation.

27)JURISDICTION :

The Plaintiff is the Resident of Safilguda which is under Malkajgiri

Mandal and the Defendant No.1 carrying Indian Operations through D2’s

office is also situated in Madhapur which comes under Serlingampally

Mandal and as such this Hon’ble court has pecuniary as well as

territorial jurisdiction to try this suit and dispose off the same on merits.

28)VALUATION AND COURT FEE: The suit is valued at

Rs.9,00,00,000=00 for the purpose of jurisdiction and the court fee paid U/s

20 of AP court fee and suit valuation Act of 1956 and the court fee of

Rs.9,02,426=00 is paid under Art.1 B & C of schedule –I of AP court fee

and suit valuation Act of Andhra Pradesh.The total court fee of Rs.

(Rupees Nine lakhs two thousand four hundred twenty six only) is remitted

by way of Challan in State bank of Hyderabad, Extension counter R.R.

District on 1-8-2012 vide Challan No.305

29) PRAYER:

Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may please to pass judgment and

decree against the Defendants jointly and severally for Rs. 9, 00, 00, 000

(Rupees Nine crore only) towards the damages for causing harassment in

spoiling the reputation of Plaintiff by posting bad profiles, and for causing

defamation, insults and hardships, physical inconvenience, mental agony and

for actual expenditure incurred etc.

B) Award future interest at 24% interest on the awarded damages from the

date of filing of suit till the date of actual payment.

C) Award costs

d) Any other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda S/o Varahala Babu Manukonda Aged 32

years, Occ: Network security analyst R/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan

Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Secunderabad - 500056. do

hereby declare that the facts in Para No.1 to are true to the best of my

Knowledge information belief and what is stated in the remaining

paragraphs is based on the legal advise which I believed to be true hence

verified on this day i.e. 2-8-2012 at LB Nagar,Hyderabad.

PLAINTIF

F

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF Serial .

No.Date of

DocumentDescription of the Document Exhibit

No.sPage

Numbers

1. Un-DatedExtract of Plaintiff as shown in the

Facebook with his name Ex.A11

2. 14-2-2011Superior Court of California

Temporary order against Plaintiff Ex.A2 2-6

3. 13-12-2010Forced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A3 7-9

4. 28-01-2011Created Gmail to defendant

Ex.A4 10

5. 23-01-2011Forced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court

along with the coverEx.A5 11-16

6. Un-DatedForced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A6 17-19

7. Un-DatedForced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court

alongEx.A7 20

8. 31-01-2011False declaration given by the Logistic

Manager Mr.Toddsheed against the plaintiff in the US court

Ex.A8 21-25

9. 15-02-2011 Stipulation order against the plaintiff by superior court of California

Ex.A9 26-27

10. 15-02-2011 Restraining order issued against the plaintiff by the superior court of

California

Ex.A10 28-31

11. 02-05-2011 Copy of the copy right registration in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A11 32

12. 09-07-2011 Copy of the FIR 180/2011 along with the complaint

Ex.A12 33-37

13. 06-08-2011 Copy of the FIR 366/2011 Ex.A13 38-40

14.06-09-2011

Original land telephone bill of the plaintiff

Ex.A14 41

15. 11-08-2009 Copy of the Domestic Gas subscription voucher of the plaintiff

Ex.A1542

16. 27-02-2007 Copy of the Passport along with the USA VISA

In favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A16 43-45

17 June 2012 Copy of Plaintiff’s profile page as “ Drake Smith” in Facebook and seen by Plaintiff on June 2012 along with Wall posting mentioning the Plaintiff as Al-Qaida

Ex.A17

18 19-7-2012 Copy of Plaintiff’s profile page as “ Manukonda Pradeep Kumar in Facebook and seen by Plaintiff on 19 July 2012 along with Wall posting and mentioned Plaintiff Jeshi Mohammed.

Ex.A18

19 6-7-2012 Copy of the employment Offer issued by Axelon Service Corporation, Kingston, New Jersey dated 6-7-12 offering $125K.

Ex.A19

20 12-7-2012 Copy of the employment Offer issued by Axelon Service Corporation, Kingston, New Jersey dated 12-7-12 offering $140K and they went back after seeing the profile in Facebook and wall posting.

Ex.A20

21 13-6-2012 Copy of Call letter from Wipro Technologies, Bangalore dated 13-6-

12

Ex.A21

22 22-6-12 Copy of Call letter from Wipro Technologies, Bangalore dated 22-6-12

Ex.A22

23 11-7-2012 Copy of Call letter from Wipro Technologies, Bangalore dated 11-7-12

Ex.A23

24 20-5-2012 Copy to Call letter from TCS-Hyderabad dated 20-5-2012

Ex.A24

25 11/7/12 Copy of Call letter from Symantec in Mountain View, CA dated 11 Jul 2012

Ex.A25

26 17-5-2012 Copy of Call letter from HP , Bangalore dated 17-5-12

Ex.A26

27 6-4-2011 Copy of domain registration confirmation under the name “myFacebooksocialnetwork.com” dated 6-4-211

Ex.A27

28 6-4-2011 Copy of “ Site Worth Checker” and rate $2.34 “myFacebooksocialnetwork.com

Ex.A28

29 21-6-2010 Copy of offer letter from AAA Computer Servies and fixed the salary as $60k dated 21-6-2010

Ex.A29

30 12-7-2010 Copy of the Worksheet i.e.proof of service in EMC dated 12-7-2010

Ex.A30

31 29-10-10 Copy of Earnings Statements of Pillar Data System dated 29-10-2010

Ex.A31

32 31-12-2010 Copy of the Income Tax Returns of Plaintiff for 2010.

Ex.A32

33 7-2-2012 Original Certified copy of the orders passed in IA No. 446/12 in OS No.122/12 by the Hon’ble District Court Judge, RR District

Ex.A33

34 4-3-2012 Times of India paper clippings Ex.A34

35 21-7-2012 Office Copy of Legal notice issued to D1

Ex.A35

36 21-7-2012 Original Postal Receipt i.e. proof of sending legal notice to D1

Ex.A36

37 24-7-2012 Original Returned Postal cover received from D1

Ex.A37

38 21-7-2012 Office Copy of Legal notice issued to D2

Ex.A38

39 21-7-2012 Original Postal Receipt i.e. proof of sending legal notice to D2

Ex.A39

40 24-7-2012 Office copy of Internet extract about the proof of delivery of legal notice to D2

Ex.A40

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Dated 2-08-2012Hyderabad

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDYDISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR

O.S.No.122/2012700/2012

Between:

Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA

…Plaintiff  

AND 

1)Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG

2) M/s Facebook rep.by Mr. Karthiga Reddy –

CMD Director Online Indian Operations,

Hyderabad …Defendants

SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS.9 CRORES

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION

26 AND UNDER ORDER 7 RULE

1 & 2 OF CPC

Filed on: 2-08-2012

Filed By: Plaintiff

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

S.SIVA SHANKERMOSHE MARPU

B.VIJAYA KUMARM.N.SREELATHA

ADVOCATES407/6-1-9&10,

PADMARAONAGAR,SECUNDERABAD-25.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR

O.S.No. /12

Between:Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDAS/o Varahala Babu ManukondaAged 32 years, Occ: Network security analystR/o Flat No.6, Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Sec-bad - 500056.  ..Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG

2)M/s Facebook rep.byMr. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081                      …Defendants

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda S/o Varahala Babu Manukonda Aged 32 years, Occ: Network security analyst R/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Secunderabad - 500056.

I am the Plaintiff and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

I have filed the above suit for damages of Rs. 9 crores against the Defendants and I have verified all the paras in the suit and found that they are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief, hence I have verified and pray the Hon’ble Court to number the suit and pass suitable orders.

DEPONENT

Sworned and Signed before meOn this day the 2-8-2012At LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

//ADVOCATE//

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICTSESSIONS JUDGE,RANGA

REDDYDISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR

O.S.No.122/2012700/2012

Between:

Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA

…Plaintiff  

AND 

1)Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG

2) M/s Facebook rep.by Mr. Karthiga Reddy –

CMD Director Online Indian Operations,

Hyderabad

…Defendants

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT

Filed on: 2-08-2012

Filed By: Plaintiff

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

S.SIVA SHANKERMOSHE MARPU

B.VIJAYA KUMARM.N.SREELATHA

ADVOCATES407/6-1-9&10,

PADMARAONAGAR,SECUNDERABAD-25.

FORM No. 61(171 payment in to the Court of cash/ process Fee Deposit)

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No. 700/2012 ,122/2012Between:Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA ……..Plaintiff AndMr.MARK ZUCKERBERG, & Another …Defendants

Nat

ure

of p

roce

ss to

be

issu

ed o

r pu

rpos

e fo

r w

hich

mon

ey is

de

posi

ted

and

Ord

er

if a

ny u

nder

whi

ch

depo

sit m

ade

Name and Description of person on whom or on Whose property the process is to be executed

Vil

lage

, Tal

uque

, Dis

tric

t, M

unsi

ff w

here

pro

cess

is

to e

xecu

ted

Dis

tanc

e in

mil

es f

rom

the

Cou

rt H

ouse

Tra

vell

ing

allo

wan

ce to

an

d fr

om th

e C

ourt

Hou

se

Cla

ss o

f a

llow

ance

Subsistence Allowance

Exp

ense

s of

sal

e or

co

mm

issi

on

AM

OU

NT

Pro

cess

Fee

s

Through Court

D1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERGS/o not known, aged about 27 years,Occ: CEO of Facebook,Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304 United States of America Hyderabad address of Facebook,Mr.Mark Zuckerberg ,M/s Facebook ,B 14, Opus Towers,Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

D2)M/s Facebook rep.byMs. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081

Rs.35/-

Rs.35/-

Total Rs. 70/- It is requested that the sum of Rs. 70/- may be received for the purpose above mentioned.

Dated this the 2nd of August o 2012

Advocate for the Plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF THE HON`BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O. S. No.700 / 2012, 122/2012

Between:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda,

….Plaintiff

AND

Mr.MARK ZUCKERBERG & Another

-- Defendants

Process Fees Cash

DEPOSIT FORM

Filed on: 02-8 -2012

Filed by:

M/s. S. SIVA SHANKAR(4752 ) MOSHE MARPU, (AP/2157/2003)

B.VIJAYA KUMAR M.N SREELTHA ADVOCATE S

R/O.407/6 -1-9&10, Padma Rao Nagar, SECUNDRABAD

-5000 25 Phone No. 91-9246169599, 91- 9949150977

(Counsel for Plaintiff)

FORM NO.2 SUMMONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES(Order V Rules 3&5)

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No. 700 / 2012

Between:

Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA   …..Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG & Another …….Defendants

To

(D-1) Mr. MARK ZUCKERBERG S/o not known, aged about 27 years,Occ: CEO of Facebook, Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304 United States of America Hyderabad address of Facebook,Mr.Mark Zuckerberg , M/s Facebook ,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

Whereas the Plaintiff has instituted a suit against you for damages of Rs. 9 crores. You are hereby summoned to appear in this court in person or by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material question relating to the suit or who shall be accompanied by some person able to answer all such question on the day__________________ at 10-30 AM in the forenoon to answer the claim and further you are hereby directed to file on that day a written statement of your defense and to produce on the said day all documents in your possession or power upon which you base as your defense.

TAKE Notice that in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned the suit is hear and determined in your absence.

GIVEN under my hand seal of the court this_________ day_______ 2012

Sd/- DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, LB NAGAR HYDERABAD-74.

FORM NO.2 SUMMONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES(Order V Rules 3&5)

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No. / 2012

Between:

Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA   …..Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr. MARK ZUCKERBERG& Another …….Defendants

To

(D-2) M/s Facebook rep.by Ms. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations, B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space, Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

Whereas the Plaintiff has instituted a suit against you for damages of Rs. 9 crores. You are hereby summoned to appear in this court in person or by a pleader duly instructed and able to answer all material question relating to the suit or who shall be accompanied by some person able to answer all such question on the day__________________ at 10-30 AM in the forenoon to answer the claim and further you are hereby directed to file on that day a written statement of your defense and to produce on the said day all documents in your possession or power upon which you base as your defense.

TAKE Notice that in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned the suit is hear and determined in your absence.

GIVEN under my hand seal of the court this_________ day_______ 2012

Sd/- DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, LB NAGAR HYDERABAD-74.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR I.A.No. /12

INO.S.No. /12

Between:Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDAS/o Varahala Babu ManukondaAged 32 years, Occ: Network security analystR/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Sec-bad - 500056.  ..Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERGS/o Edward Zuckerberg, aged about 27 years,Occ: CEO of Facebook,Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304 United States of America

Hyderabad address of Facebook,Mr.Mark Zuckerberg ,M/s Facebook ,B 14, Opus Towers,Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

2)M/s Facebook rep.byMs. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081                      …Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda S/o Varahala Babu Manukonda Aged 32 years, Occ: Network security analyst R/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Secunderabad - 500056.

2) I am the Plaintiff and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I submit that the above plaint averments may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

3) I further submit that my plaint may please be read as part and parcel of this affidavit for better appreciation of my case.

4) I further submit that the Defendants started spoiling my reputation repeatedly and in spite of this court direction, the Defendants started posting in the name of Drake Smith and Manukonda Pradeep Kumar and caused immense damage to my reputation and personality and caused heavy loss to me. Since I am fed up with their activities, I have issued the legal notice on 21-7-2012 and both the Defendants have received the legal notices but failed to reply and under those circumstances, I have claimed damages for Rs. 9 crores.

5) I further submit that the Defendant No.1 is planning to move the Indian operations from Hi-tech City, Madhapur to

Mumbai, Maharashtra and if the office is shifted immediately to Mumbai, it would be very difficult to execute the decree that the Hon’ble Court may please to pass in future.

6) Hence I pray the Hon’ble Court to direct the Defendants to furnish the security to the extent of Rs. 9 crores before judgment in the interest of justice; otherwise I will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

DEPONENTSworned and Signed before meOn this day the 2-8-2012At LB Nagar, Hyderabad. //ADVOCATE//

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGAR I.A.No. /12

INO.S.No. /12

Between:Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDAS/o Varahala Babu ManukondaAged 32 years, Occ: Network security analystR/o Flat No.6 Sai Charan Aprtmnts. Behind Bank of India, Safilguda Sec-bad - 500056.  Petnr/Plaintiff  

AND 

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERGS/o Edward Zuckerberg, aged about 27 years,Occ: CEO of Facebook,Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304 United States of America

Hyderabad address of Facebook,Mr.Mark Zuckerberg ,M/s Facebook ,B 14, Opus Towers,Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India – 500081.

2)M/s Facebook rep.byMs. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online Indian Operations,B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081                     Respts/Defendants

PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 38 RULE 5R/W SEC.151 OF CPC

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may please to direct the Defendants to furnish the security to the extent of Rs. 9 crores before judgment in the interest of justice, otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERDt.2-8-2012,LB NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICTSESSIONS JUDGE,RANGA

REDDYDISTRICT COURT

AT LB NAGARI.A.No. /12

IN

O.S.No. /2012

Between:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda

…Plaintiff  

AND 

1)Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG

2) M/s Facebook rep.by Ms. Karthiga Reddy –

CMD Director Online Indian Operations,

Hyderabad

…Defendants

PETITION FILED UNDERORDER 38 RULE 5 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC

Filed on: 2-08-2012

Filed By: Plaintiff

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

S.SIVA SHANKERMOSHE MARPU

B.VIJAYA KUMARM.N.SREELATHA

ADVOCATES407/6-1-9&10,

PADMARAONAGAR,SECUNDERABAD-25.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT LB NAGAR

O.S.No. / 2012Between:Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda ……..Plaintiff AndMr.MARK ZUCKERBERG, M/s Facebook, …Defendant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF Serial .

No.Date of

DocumentDescription of the Document Exhibit

No.sPage

Numbers

1. Un-DatedExtract of Plaintiff as shown in the

Facebook with his name Ex.A11

2. 14-2-2011Superior Court of California Temporary

order against Plaintiff Ex.A2 2-6

3. 13-12-2010Forced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A3 7-9

4. 28-01-2011Created Gmail to defendant

Ex.A4 10

5. 23-01-2011Forced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court

along with the coverEx.A5 11-16

6. Un-DatedForced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A6 17-19

7. Un-DatedForced hand writing letter of plaintiff filed by the defendant before US court

alongEx.A7 20

8. 31-01-2011False declaration given by the Logistic

Manager Mr.Toddsheed against the plaintiff in the US court

Ex.A8 21-25

9. 15-02-2011Stipulation order against the plaintiff by

superior court of California Ex.A9 26-27

10. 15-02-2011Restraining order issued against the

plaintiff by the superior court of California

Ex.A10 28-31

11. 02-05-2011 Copy of the copy right registration in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A11 32

12. 09-07-2011Copy of the FIR 180/2011 along with

the complaint Ex.A12 33-37

13. 06-08-2011Copy of the FIR 366/2011

Ex.A13 38-40

14.06-09-2011 Original land telephone bill of the

plaintiff Ex.A14 41

15. 11-08-2009Copy of the Domestic Gas subscription

voucher of the plaintiff Ex.A1542

16. 27-02-2007Copy of the Passport along with the

USA VISA In favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A16 43-45

Dated 03-2-2012Hyderabad COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

LAW OF DEFAMATIONA man’s reputation is his property and is more valuable than

any other tangible asset. Every man has the right to have his

reputation preserved. It is acknowledged as an inherent

personal right of every person. It is a jus in rem, a right good

against all the people in the world. The degree of suffering

caused by loss of reputation far exceeds that caused by loss of

any material wealth.

The Law of Defamation protects reputation. Defamation is defined as follows:Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him.In English Common Law, reputation is the most clearly protected and is remedied almost exclusively in civil law by an award of damages after trial by a jury. However reputation can rarely be assessed in financial terms but the damages awarded in most defamation cases are substantial because these awards reflect the juries’ ideas of the value of dignity and honour as well as reputation. At the same time, there is some tension between this wrong and the freedom of speech, particularly the freedom of the press and broadcast media and the common law which has felt the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights.However, the Law of Defamation like many other branches of tort law aims at balancing the interests of the parties concerned. These are the rights that a person has to his reputation vis-à-vis the right to freedom of speech. The Law of Defamation provides defences to the wrong such as truth and privilege thus also protecting right of freedom of speech but at the same time marking the boundaries within which it may be limited. In India tort law is obtained from British Common Law and is yet uncodified. Therefore the existing law relating to defamation places reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and is saved by clause (2) of Article 19.The wrong of defamation may be committed by making defamatory statements which are calculated to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to injure him in his trade, business, profession, calling or office, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided in society. This is known as “publication” of the statement, which in its true legal sense means the communication of defamatory matter to some person other than the person of whom it is written. These statements can be made in the following two ways:1. Libel: The publication of a false and defamatory

statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. The statement must

be in a printed form, e.g., writing, printing, pictures, cartoons, statue, waxwork effigy etc.

2. Slander: A false and defamatory statement by spoken words and/or gestures tending to injure the reputation of others. It is in a transient form. It also involves the sign language used by the physically disabled.

In Common law, a libel is a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong, but a slander is a civil wrong only. However in Indian law, both are criminal offences under Sec. 499 of the I.P.C. Libel is more favourable to the claimant because it is actionable per se and injury to reputation will be presumed. The Faulks Committee in its report in 1975 recommended the abolition of this distinction between libel and slander which when implemented will mean that no human plaintiff need prove any special damage but institutional plaintiffs should prove that the words actually caused loss or were likely to do so. The weight of the authorities is for discarding between libel and slander and making both of them actionable per se. However, whether the case is one of libel or slander, the following elements must be proved by the claimant in order for the defendant to be liable for the tort of defamation:1. The statement (the technically correct term is

“imputation”) is defamatory.2. It refers to the plaintiff i.e. identifies him.3. It has been published i.e. communicated to at least one

person other than the claimant.Defamation is a unique tort, especially when understood in its historical context. Until the 16th century in England, general jurisdiction over defamation was exercised by the clergy. Thereafter, the common law courts developed an action on the case for slander where ‘temporal’, as distinct from ‘spiritual’ damage could be established. This progress became too rapid for the judges who proceeded to hedge the action around with tighter restrictions. Later, the common law courts established a distinction between libel and slander on the basis that damage could be presumed in libel, but that the plaintiff would have to prove ‘special damage’ before an action for slander would lie.In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, liability in defamation was extended because of the menace to reputations occasioned by the new, popular press with its mass circulation. The recent history of defamation is marked by continuing conflict between the need to protect individuals from unjustifiable character assassination and the right to freedom of the speech. The press maintains that the latter is often disregarded at the expense of open and honest criticism of

those in authority. But in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd the press scored a notable victory. The House of Lords ruled that a democratically elected body should be open to uninhibited public criticism and that the threat of a defamatory action would surely inhibit the freedom of speech of the press. However, in Reynolds V Times Newspapers Ltd The Court of Appeal was mindful of the fact that the European Rights Convention, which stressed upon the fundamentality of the right to freedom of speech, was destined to become a part of common law and that thus there should be allowed the defence of qualified privilege to be raised by the press when commenting on public figures.Defamation actions have proved to be a popular recourse for wealthy public figures seeking, with the aid of expensive lawyers, to vindicate their reputations publicly in the law courts. To a certain extent, the tort of defamation is a wealthy person’s tort, for legal aid is available neither to pursue, nor to defend, a defamation action. On the other hand, in the past, a number of libel actions have, on occasion, been supported by private funds set up by wealth individuals with an axe to grind who have themselves suffered at the hands of the popular press.Another notable facet of defamation actions in recent years is the very high level of damages awarded, which have not simply compensated the plaintiffs for their loss of reputation but have also included a very sizeable amount of punitive damages. The amount of damages is normally set by a jury. Also defamation has become a very lucrative specialisation for lawyers too. Most of the decided cases of defamation reveal that they do not concern the essence of the claim itself, but rather, complex arguments on pleadings and particulars. In consequence, legal costs consume large proportions of the claims itself.Defamation is a relatively new tort for Indian Law. Not many defamation suits were filed in the country until recently and the only ones that were filed were those by film stars and the rich and the famous, against the media, trying to salvage their reputation. However, now after the media revolution in this country, and with people becoming more aware of their rights, the frequency of defamation suits being filed is increasing. Recently, there have been a few cases where a few journalists have ‘exposed’ the corrupt side of the politicians by discreetly filming a politician with a hidden camera when he was taking a bribe for posing questions in parliament or religious heads discreetly accepting bribes in order to go ahead and declare something about their religion, distorting completely the religious principles they are supposed to uphold and by misuse

the authority vested in him/her. In India these days, it is this category of people who file defamation suits against the media for destroying their reputation and questioning the veracity of these hidden recordings. Now, not only are celebrities filing lawsuits, but many not-so-famous people are realizing that if their right to reputation is violated, they can make sure that the offender is punished and can walk away with a handsome sum as compensation too. Clearly, India is on its path to become a litigious society.Chapter One: The constituents of the Tort of DefamationRegardless of whether a defamation action is framed in libel or slander, the plaintiff must always prove that the words, pictures, gestures etc are defamatory. Equally, the plaintiff must show that they refer to him. Finally he must also prove that they were maliciously published. These are the three essential elements in a defamation action.Elements of Defamation(A) The statement must be defamatoryAny imputation which exposes one to disgrace and humiliation, ridicule or contempt, is defamatory. It could be made in different ways as in it could be oral, in writing, printed or by the exhibition of a picture, effigy or statue or by some conduct.According to Lord Atkins, whether a statement is defamatory or not depends upon how the right thinking members of society the society are likely to take it. Yet the term ‘right-thinking members of society’ is highly ambiguous. The standard to be applied is that of a right-minded citizen, a man of fair average intelligence, and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or approved by the fair minded members of that society generally. If the likely effect of the statement is the injury to the plaintiff’s reputation, it is no defence to say that it was not intended to be defamatory. When the statement causes anyone to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, or disesteem, it is defamatory.In D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata there was publication of a statement in a local daily in Jodhpur that Manjulata on the pretext of attending her evening BA classes ran away with a boy named Kamlesh. The girl belonged to a well educated respectable family. She was seventeen years of age. The news item was untrue and had been irresponsibly published without any justification. This was defamatory and the defendants, the newspaper publishers were held liable.However, words spoken in anger or annoyance or in the heat of the moment are not defamatory as they no way reflect on the character of the one being abused.

However, sometimes the statement being used to defame may be prima facie innocent but becomes defamatory because of some latent or hidden meaning. In such a scenario the plaintiff must prove the hidden meaning, which is the innuendo if s/he wants to file a suit for defamation. For instance in Cassidy V Daily Mirror Newspapers the newspaper published a picture of a lady and the race horse owner with the caption underneath, “Mr. M. Corrigan, the race-horse owner and Miss X whose engagement has been announced”. The newspaper was held liable in a suit that said that the lady was the lawful wife of Mr. Corrigan and complained that the words suggested that she had been living with him in immortality. The liability of the defendants rested on their failure to make independent inquiry. This also brings forth another aspect of this tort that intention to defame is not necessary and if the words are considered to be defamatory by the persons to whom the statement is published, there is defamation.(B) The statement must refer to the plaintiffThe plaintiff has to prove that the statement which is claimed to be defamatory actually refers to him/her. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff, if the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.In Hulton Co. V Jones the defendants published a fictional article in their newspaper in which aspersions were cast on the morals of a fictitious character-Artemus Jones, stated to be a Churchwarden. On this basis one Artemus Jones, a barrister, brought an action against the defendants. The defendants pleaded that Artemus was a fictional character and the plaintiff was not known to them and thus they had no intention to defame him. Notwithstanding this, they were held liable because a substantial number of persons who knew the plaintiff and had read the editorial would have assumed it to be referring to him.However, when the defamation refers to a class of persons, no member of that group can sue unless he can prove that the words could reasonably be considered to be referring to him.When the statement though generally referring to a class can be reasonably considered to be referring to a particular plaintiff, his action will succeed. In Fanu v. Malcomson, in an article published by the defendants, it was mentioned that cruelty was practised upon employees in some of the Irish factories. From the article as a whole including a reference to Waterford itself, it was considered that the plaintiff’s

Waterford factory was aimed at in the article and the plaintiff was, therefore, successful in his action for defamation.(C) The statement must be publishedPublication means making the defamatory matter known to some other third part and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation can lie in court. Communication to the plaintiff wont count because defamation is injury to the reputation which consists in the estimation in which others hold him and not a man’s own opinion of himself. However, if a third party wrongfully intercepts and reads a letter sent to the plaintiff it is not defamation. However when the defendant knows that the letter is likely to be read by someone else and it contains some personal information only meant for the recipient, then he will be liable.Also, an injunction can be issued against the publication of a defamatory statement which is likely to injure the reputation of one of the arties involved as was done in Prameela Ravindran v. P. Lakshmikutty Amma .Also, in the eyes of the law, husband and wife are one person and the communication of a defamatory matter from the husband to the wife or vice versa is no publication.When the repetition of the defamatory matter is involved, the liability of the person who repeats that defamatory matter is the same as that of the originator, because every repetition is a fresh publication giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Not only the author is liable but the editor, printer or publisher would be liable in the same way.Chapter Two: Defences to the Tort of Defamation(A) Justification by truthIn a civil action for defamation, truth is a complete defence. However under criminal law, it must also be proved that the imputation was made for the public good. Under the civil law, merely proving that the statement was true is a good defence the reason being that “the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does no or ought not to possess”The defence is available even if the statement is made maliciously and if the statement is substantially true but incorrect in respect of certain other minor particulars, the defence will still be available.The Defamation Act, 1952 (England) provides that if there are several charges of defamation and the defendant is successful in proving the truth of only some of them, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation.

Although there is no specific provision in India regarding the above, the law is possibly the same as prevailing in England.(B) A fair and bona fide comment on a matter of public interestIt involves making fair comments on matters of public interest. For this defence to be available, the following essentials are required:(i) It must be a comment, i.e., an expression of opinion rather than an assertion of fact(ii) The comment must be fair, i.e., must be based on the truth and not on untrue or invented facts(iii) The matter commented upon must be of public interest.If due to malice on the part of the defendant, the comment is a distorted one, his comment ceases to be fair and he cannot take such a defence. In Gregory V Duke of Brunswick the plaintiff, an actor, appeared on the stage of a theatre but the defendant and other persons in malice started hooting and hissing and thereby caused him to lose his engagement. This was held to actionable and an unfair comment on the plaintiff’s performance and the defendants were held to be guilty.(C) Privilege - It is of two kinds:· Absolute Privilege: Certain statements are allowed to be made when the larger interest of the community overrides the interest of the individual. No action lies for the defamatory statement even though it may be false or malicious. In such cases, the public interest demands that an individuals right to reputation should give way to the freedom of speech. This privilege is provided to:(i) Parliamentary proceedings,(ii) judicial proceedings,(iii) Military and Naval proceedings and(iv) State proceedings.· Qualified Privilege: For communications made in the course of legal, social or moral duty, for self-protection, protection of common interest, for public good and proceedings at public meetings, provided the absence of malice is proved. Also, there must be an occasion for making the statement. To avail this defence, the following things must be kept in mind:(i) The statement should be made in discharge of a public duty or protection of an interest(ii) Or, it is a fair report of parliamentary, judicial or other public proceedings(iii) The statement should be made without any malice.Chapter Three: An Analysis of an English defamation case: douglas V hello! magazine

In this case, the upcoming glamorous wedding of the claimants, both Hollywood celebrities had received widespread coverage in the tabloid press. In November 2000 OK! A tabloid journal entered into a contract with Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, for the exclusive right to publish photographs of their forthcoming wedding on 18 November 2000 at the Plaza Hotel, New York. The Douglases dealt with OK!, who paid them £1m for the rights, in preference to the rival magazine Hello!, published by the respondent. The Douglases agreed to engage a photographer and to supply OK! with pictures they had chosen. By clause 6 of the agreement they agreed to use their best efforts to ensure that no one else would take any photographs.The Douglases went to some lengths to comply with this obligation and no criticism is made of their security precautions, but a freelance photographer named Rupert Thorpe infiltrated the wedding and took photographs which he sold to Hello!. OK! obtained an ex parte injunction restraining publication by Hello! but on 23 November 2000 the injunction was discharged by the Court of Appeal and the photographs were published on the following day. A few hours earlier on the same day OK! published its own photographs, having brought forward its date of publication on account of what it knew to be the imminent publication by Hello! Also on the same day, some of the unauthorized pictures were, without objection by Hello!, published in national daily newspapers.OK! sued Hello! for breach of confidence and for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means.Lindsay J held Hello! liable for breach of confidence. He applied the well-known criteria summarized by Megarry J in Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41, 47:“First, the information itself…must ‘have the necessary quality of confidence about it. Secondly, that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. Thirdly, there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.”For this purpose the judge identified the information as being photographic images of the wedding. Not information about the wedding generally; anyone was free to communicate the information that the Douglases had been married, describe what the bride wore and so forth. The claim was only that there had been a breach of an obligation of confidence in respect of photographic images.Lindsay J held that the three conditions were satisfied. As for the first, photographs of the wedding were confidential information in the sense that none were publicly available. As

to the second, the Douglases had made it clear that anyone admitted to the wedding was not to make or communicate photographic images. They allowed people to witness their marriage, but only on the basis that the information which the spectators thereby obtained was not communicated in the form of a photographic image. The judge said (at para 197):“the very facts that Hello! and OK! competed for exclusivity as they did and that each was ready to pay so much for it points to the commercial confidentiality of coverage of the event. The event was private in character and the elaborate steps to exclude the uninvited, to include only the invited, to preclude unauthorized photography, to control the authorized photography and to have had the claimants’ intentions in that regard made clear all conduce to that conclusion. Such images as were, so to speak, radiated by the event were imparted to those present, including Mr Thorpe and his camera, in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. Everyone there knew that was so.”Furthermore, everyone knew that the obligation of confidence was imposed for the benefit of OK! as well as the Douglases. To no one could this have been clearer than to Mr Thorpe. The judge then went on to make findings about the circumstances in which Hello! had acquired his photographs:“198. As for the Hello! defendants, their consciences were, in my view, tainted; they were not acting in good faith nor by way of fair dealing. Whilst their position might have been worse had I held that the taking of unauthorised pictures for use by them had been truly commissioned in advance, even without that there is in my view enough to afflict their conscience. They knew that OK! had an exclusive contract; as persons long engaged in the relevant trade, they knew what sort of provisions any such contract would include and that it would include provisions intended to preclude intrusion and unauthorised photography. Particularly would that be so where, as they knew, a very considerable sum would have had to have been paid for the exclusive rights which had been obtained. … The surrounding facts were such that a duty of confidence should be inferred from them. The Hello! defendants had indicated to paparazzi in advance that they would pay well for photographs and they knew the reputation of the paparazzi for being able to intrude. The unauthorised pictures themselves plainly indicated they were taken surreptitiously. Yet these defendants firmly kept their eyes shut lest they might see what they undeniably knew would have become apparent to them.”The obligation of confidence was therefore binding upon Hello! and the third requirement of use to the detriment of OK! was

plainly satisfied. Lindsay J therefore decided that Hello! was liable to OK! for the loss caused by the publication, which he later assessed at £1,033,156.The Court of Appeal reversed the judge’s decision on the ground that the obligation of confidence for the benefit of OK! attached only to the photographs which the Douglases authorized them to publish. They did not have the benefit of an obligation of confidence in respect of any other photographs. Their publication may have invaded a residual right of privacy retained by the Douglases but did not infringe any right of OK!In the researcher’s opinion Lindsay J was right. The point of which one should never lose sight is that OK! had paid £1m for the benefit of the obligation of confidence imposed upon all those present at the wedding in respect of any photographs of the wedding. That was quite clear. Unless there is some conceptual or policy reason why they should not have the benefit of that obligation, it cannot be seen why they were not entitled to enforce it. And there are no such reasons. Provided that one keeps one’s eye firmly on the money and why it was paid, the case is, as Lindsay J held, quite straightforward.It is first necessary to avoid being distracted by the concepts of privacy and personal information. In recent years, English law has adapted the action for breach of confidence to provide a remedy for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. This development has been mediated by the analogy of the right to privacy conferred by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and has required a balancing of that right against the right to freedom of expression conferred by article 10. But this appeal is not concerned with the protection of privacy. Whatever may have been the position of the Douglases, who recovered damages for an invasion of their privacy, OK!’s claim is to protect commercially confidential information and nothing more. So there is no need to be concerned with Convention rights. OK! has no claim to privacy under article 8 nor can it make a claim which is parasitic upon the Douglases’ right to privacy. The fact that the information happens to have been about the personal life of the Douglases is irrelevant. It could have been information about anything that a newspaper was willing to pay for. What matters is that the Douglases, by the way they arranged their wedding, were in a position to impose an obligation of confidence. They were in control of the information.The counsel for the respondent argued that the information in the photographic images was not intended to be kept secret but to be published to the world by OK! and was so published at

much the same time as the unauthorised photographs in Hello!. They also argued that once the approved photographs were published, the publication of the unauthorised photographs was not a breach of confidence and that the differences between the photographs were “insufficiently significant to call for legal protection”; “the unapproved pictures contained nothing not included in the approved pictures”.However, since a substantial amount of money was inloved in the contract, the point of the transaction was that each picture would be treated as a separate piece of information which OK! would have the exclusive right to publish. The pictures published by OK! were put into the public domain and it would have had to rely on the law of copyright, not the law of confidence, to prevent their reproduction. But no other pictures were in the public domain and they did not enter the public domain merely because they resembled other pictures which hadThe judge found that despite the massive publicity which accompanied the wedding, it was nonetheless “private”. He also found that the contract with OK Magazine was “a means of reducing the risk of intrusion by unauthorised members of the media and hence of preserving the privacy of [the wedding].”The judge made some important observations about the law of privacy in dismissing the claimants’ claim in that respect. The main reason he gave for dismissing that part of the claimants’ action was that he doubted that UK law had a distinct right of privacy.The judge made some important observations about the law of privacy in dismissing the claimants’ claim in that respect. The main reason he gave for dismissing that part of the claimants’ action was that he doubted that UK law had a distinct right of privacy. He observed that UK law did not adequately protect the European Convention right in this respect. He said that Parliament should step in to correct this deficiency, but that if Parliament failed to grasp the nettle the court would ultimately have to do so. That would not happen until the court was faced (as it was not here) with a claim where breach of confidence did not provide an adequate remedy.Apart from the privacy of the wedding, the other main issue before the court was the commercial benefit both to OK Magazine and to Douglas and Zeta-Jones of the exclusive contract between them, and the “spoiling” publication of unauthorised pictures by Hello! The significance of the judgment is that the judge allowed the claimants to enforce the contract against Hello! on the basis that the commercial effect

of the contract was to create something akin to a trade secret. The judge found that Hello! was not acting in good faith, and that it had clearly breached the Press Complaints Commission Code since it was plain that the photographs that it purchased were obtained by subterfuge. Therefore their conscience was “tainted” which meant that the claimants were entitled to enforce their equitable rights in the law of confidence against Hello!The judge held the defendants to be liable to the Claimants under the law as to confidence. An important step in his coming to that conclusion had been that, on balancing rights to confidence against freedom of express for the purpose of granting or withholding relief, he had been required by statute to pay regard to the Code of the Press Complaints Commission. According to the judge, The Hello! Defendants broke their own industry’s Code.The important thing for the claimants is that they were granted their remedy. The common press practice of ’spoiling’ exclusives of this sort now carries a clear commercial risk, since on the basis of this judgment such contracts will be upheld by the courts and enforced against anyone who is or ought to be aware of them. This reduces the value of such unauthorised photographs, and while further doubt has been cast on the existence of a distinct law of privacy, the protection that the law will grant against this sort of press activity has been strengthened by this judgmentThe Douglases and OK magazine won their actions for breach of confidence against Hello! Magazine and its publishers, despite adjudications on some aspects of the claims in the defendants’ favour. However, a complex series of questions fell to be determined by the judge on the appropriate orders for costs based on his previous judgments both as to liability and quantum.The judge awarded the claimants 85% of their costs for the hearing on quantum and he ordered that these too should be assessed on the standard basis. He went on to order £120,000 interest on the award of over £1 million made to OK in the action.The Douglases and OK magazine won their actions for breach of confidence against Hello! magazine and its publishers, despite adjudications on some aspects of the claims in the defendants’ favour. However, a complex series of questions fell to be determined by the judge on the appropriate orders for costs based on his previous judgments both as to liability and quantum.

The judge specifically took into account the judicial findings of misconduct against Hello!, referring to the “lamentable incident” whereby an “untruthful and misleading” letter had been procured by those defendants. A number of harsh criticisms by the judge of the behaviour of Hello! in his judgment on the issue of costs clearly had an impact on his various awards.The judge considered that an award that merely looked at the number of issues won respectively by the claimants and the defendants would not fairly reflect the realities of the case. Overall, the claimants had clearly won the liability hearing, and he considered therefore that the appropriate proportion of their costs which the defendants should pay was 75%. He assessed this on the “standard” basis because he considered that the award of “indemnity” costs at an earlier hearing where the misconduct by Hello! was exposed constituted sufficient punishmentConclusionThe laws in place to counter the menace of defamation are both satisfactory and reasonable but in certain areas need to be made more stringent so as to dissuade the celebrity crazy media from wantonly publishing and broadcasting fraudulent, defamatory matter in order to make instant money. Thus the protection of privacy and the prevention of press harassment is also an important issue which needs to be redressed with the better implementation of laws already existing.Since no cause of action survives the defamed person’s death, it is clear that reputation is merely a transitory interest, which, by way of the defences available, has to be balanced against the public interest. Similarly fair comments protect the press when expressing their views on the actions of politicians, public servants and others in the public eye, provided they are true.Defamation does have significance and a very strong one at that as it protects a right which is essential to for the members of society to co-exist. Obviously, if people do not respect that right and are allowed to say and publish whatever they want without substantiating it with an honest reason to believe, then there would be no harmony in society, insecurity would be rampant and society would be in shambles. However there exists the question of balancing the interest of both the parties concerned. This debate on how to achieve the correct balance between the individual’s interest in his good name and freedom of speech is a vital attribute of democratic society. However, while trying to resolve that debate via the development of the tort of defamation, the courts are hindered by the procedural game which characterises many libel actions, the

unpredictability of the jury, and the absence of developed torts of invasion of privacy and breach of confidence. Thus more changes need to be taken which do away with the superfluous procedural games thus leaving behind only the core of the tort to be implemented. However, the tort of defamation has an ancient history and a capacity for survival which shall outlive more topical concerns.BibliographyBooks