10/18/16 RAM JETHMALANI Vs.

SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY

RAM JETHMALANI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY

(http://www.the-laws.com)

LAWS(DLH)-2000-11-5
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 27,2000

RAM JETHMALANI Appellant

VERSUS
SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY Respondents

JUDGEMENT
S.K. Agarwal - (1.) The defendant in this application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short Civil Procedure Code), has
prayed for rejection of the suit on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action
and that the suit is barred by Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 (for short
the Act).
(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that the plaintiff filed suit
for damages of Rs. 50,00,000.00 against the defendant alleging that on 20/10/1993 the
Commission of Inquiry setup by the Government of India to investigate the circumstances
relating to the assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi under the Act, addressed a letter to
Ms. Jayalalitha (the then Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu), stating that the Commission would like
to know if she had anything to say about the information furnished by the defendant Which
was quoted in the letter. The plaintiff was briefed as a Senior Counsel to appear for Ms.
Jayalalitha, to conduct the cross-examination of the defendant and to urge that no case for
summoning her before the Commission was made out. The defendant was cross-examined
and the matter was argued by the plaintiff strongly opposing the request made by the
defendant to summon Ms. Jayalalitha before the Commission for her cross-examination by
the defendant. After the plaintiffs submissions were over, the defendant tiled before the
Commission "written submissions" which were read out in the Court and also circulated to
the press. It is further alleged that in the written submissions, the defendant made
malicious and false, per se libellous accusation against the plaintiff with an intent to damage
his personal, political and professional reputation. After the pleadings were completed, on
12/10/1998 issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was framed with regard to the maintainability
of the suit in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under: "Whether
the suit is barred under Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952?"
(3.) When the issues,were framed, the defendant prayed that Issue No. 1 be tried as a
preliminary issue. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the
prayer was declined. The suit was listed for trial. Against this order the defendant filed an

www.the-laws.com/Ency clopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=100002121100 1/2

10/18/16 RAM JETHMALANI Vs. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY

appeal, which was dismissed by me Division Bench on 18/12/1998. The defendant then
preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6518/99 against the said order, which was also
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20/7/1999. Thereafter, on 23/9/2000 the defendant
moved the present application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is
based on his deposition before the said Inquiry Commission, which is barred by Section 6 of
the Act. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the application read as under: "8. Thus it is the plaintiff's
own averment here and elsewhere that the alleged defamation was'the defendant's
concluding arguments submitted in writing to the Commission.' 9. Thus it is submitted that:
(1) the alleged defamation was the statement made by the defendant in the course of giving
evidence before the Commission; and (2) this statement is relevant to the subject-matter
of inquiry." ;

Click here to view full judgement. (/)

Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.

www.the-laws.com/Ency clopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=100002121100 2/2