Damages suit against facebook (1)

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT
AT LB NAGAR HYDERABAD INDIA 500074

O.S.No. 122 /12 ,700/12
Between:
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 Sec-bad - 500056. ..Plaintiff

AND

1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG
S/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.by
Ms. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director
Online Indian Operations,
B 14, Opus Towers, Mind space
Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India - 500081
…Defendants

SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF USD 1,621,913
PLAINT 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=00
Future earnings: = Rs . 16,33,50,000=00
Future increments: 1.63,00,000=00
Mental agony : 10,00,00,000=00
Loss from website
Business: 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.

PLAINTIFF

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF

Serial . Date of Description of the Document Exhibit Page
No. Document No.s Numbers

Extract of Plaintiff as shown in the 1
1. Un-Dated Facebook with his name Ex.A1
Superior Court of California
2. 14-2-2011 Temporary order against Plaintiff Ex.A2 2-6
Forced hand writing letter of plaintiff
3. 13-12-2010 filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A3 7-9
Created Gmail to defendant
4. 28-01-2011 Ex.A4 10
along with the cover
6. Un-Dated filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A6 17-19
7. Un-Dated filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A7 20
along
False declaration given by the Logistic
8. 31-01-2011 Manager Mr.Toddsheed against the Ex.A8 21-25
plaintiff in the US court

9. 15-02-2011 Stipulation order against the plaintiff Ex.A9 26-27
by superior court of California

10. 15-02-2011 Restraining order issued against the Ex.A10 28-31
plaintiff by the superior court of
California

11. 02-05-2011 Copy of the copy right registration in Ex.A11 32
favour of the plaintiff

12. 09-07-2011 Copy of the FIR 180/2011 along with Ex.A12 33-37
the complaint

13. 06-08-2011 Copy of the FIR 366/2011 Ex.A13 38-40
06-09-2011
14. Original land telephone bill of the Ex.A14 41
plaintiff
42
15. 11-08-2009 Copy of the Domestic Gas Ex.A15
subscription voucher of the plaintiff

16. 27-02-2007 Copy of the Passport along with the Ex.A16 43-45
USA VISA
In favour of the plaintiff
17 June 2012 Copy of Plaintiff’s profile page as Ex.A17
“ Drake Smith” in Facebook and
seen by Plaintiff on June 2012
along with Wall posting
mentioning the Plaintiff as Al-
Qaida

18 19-7-2012 Copy of Plaintiff’s profile page as Ex.A18
“ Manukonda Pradeep Kumar in
Facebook and seen by Plaintiff on
19 July 2012 along with Wall
posting and mentioned Plaintiff
Jeshi Mohammed.

19 6-7-2012 Copy of the employment Offer Ex.A19
issued by Axelon Service
Corporation, Kingston, New
Jersey dated 6-7-12 offering
$125K.
20 12-7-2012 Copy of the employment Offer Ex.A20
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.

21 13-6-2012 Copy of Call letter from Wipro Ex.A21
Technologies, Bangalore dated 13-6-
12
Technologies, Bangalore dated
22-6-12

Technologies, Bangalore dated
11-7-12
24 20-5-2012 Copy to Call letter from TCS- Ex.A24
Hyderabad dated 20-5-2012

25 11/7/12 Copy of Call letter from Ex.A25
Symantec in Mountain View,
CA dated 11 Jul 2012

26 17-5-2012 Copy of Call letter from HP , Ex.A26
Bangalore dated 17-5-12

27 6-4-2011 Copy of domain registration Ex.A27
confirmation under the name
“myFacebooksocialnetwork.co
m” dated 6-4-211
28 6-4-2011 Copy of “ Site Worth Ex.A28
Checker” and rate $2.34
“myFacebooksocialnetwork.co
m
29 21-6-2010 Copy of offer letter from AAA Ex.A29
Computer Servies and fixed
the salary as $60k dated 21-6-
2010

30 12-7-2010 Copy of the Worksheet i.e.proof of Ex.A30
service in EMC dated 12-7-2010
31 29-10-10 Copy of Earnings Statements Ex.A31
of Pillar Data System dated 29-
10-2010

32 31-12-2010 Copy of the Income Tax Returns of Ex.A32
Plaintiff for 2010.

33 7-2-2012 Original Certified copy of the orders Ex.A33
passed in IA No. 446/12 in OS
No.122/12 by the Hon’ble District
Court Judge, RR District
34 4-3-2012 Times of India paper clippings Ex.A34

35 21-7-2012 Office Copy of Legal notice issued to Ex.A35
D1
36 21-7-2012 Original Postal Receipt i.e. proof of Ex.A36
sending legal notice to D1
37 24-7-2012 Original Returned Postal cover Ex.A37
received from D1
38 21-7-2012 Office Copy of Legal notice issued to Ex.A38
D2
39 21-7-2012 Original Postal Receipt i.e. proof of Ex.A39
sending legal notice to D2
40 24-7-2012 Office copy of Internet extract about Ex.A40
the proof of delivery of legal notice to
D2

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Dated 2-08-2012
Hyderabad

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

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

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 SHANKER
MOSHE MARPU
B.VIJAYA KUMAR
M.N.SREELATHA
ADVOCATES
407/6-1-9&10,
PADMARAONAGAR,
SECUNDERABAD-25.

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

O.S.No. /12

Between:
R/o Flat No.6, Sai Charan Aprtmnts.

AND


Mr. Karthiga Reddy - CMD Director Online
Indian Operations,
…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 me
On this day the 2-8-2012
At LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

//ADVOCAT
E//

SESSIONS JUDGE,RANGA
REDDY
DISTRICT COURT
AT LB NAGAR

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

Between:


…Plaintiff

AND


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 SHANKER
MOSHE MARPU
B.VIJAYA KUMAR
M.N.SREELATHA
ADVOCATES
407/6-1-9&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
Nature of process to be issued or purpose for which money is

O.S.No. 700/2012 ,122/2012
Between:
Mr. PRADEEP KUMAR MANUKONDA ……..Plaintiff
And
Mr.MARK ZUCKERBERG, & Another …Defendants
Travelling allowance to and from the Court House

Expenses of sale or commission
deposited and Order if any under which deposit

Distance in miles from the Court House
Village, Taluque, District, Munsiff where process is to executed

Class of allowance

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

Process Fees
made

D1) Mr MARK ZUCKERBERG
S/o not known, aged about 27 years,
Through Rs.35/-
Court
Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue
Palo Alto,CA 94304 United States of
America Hyderabad address of Facebook,
M/s Facebook ,B 14, Opus Towers,

Rs.35/-
D2)M/s Facebook rep.by
Cyber Towers, Hyderabad, India -
500081

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)

COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No. 700 / 2012

Between:

…..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)

COURT AT: L.B.NAGAR

O.S.No. / 2012

Between:

…..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,

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.

AT LB NAGAR
I.A.No. /12
IN
O.S.No. /12
Between:

AND

Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304


…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.

DEPONENT
Sworned and Signed before me
On this day the 2-8-2012
At LB Nagar, Hyderabad.
//ADVOCATE//

AT LB NAGAR
I.A.No. /12
IN
O.S.No. /12
Between:
Safilguda Sec-bad - 500056. Petnr/Plaintiff

AND

Permanent R/o 1601 S California Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94304


Respts/Defendants

PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 38 RULE 5
R/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 PETITIONER
Dt.2-8-2012,LB NAGAR
SESSIONS JUDGE,RANGA
REDDY
DISTRICT COURT
AT LB NAGAR
I.A.No. /12
IN

O.S.No. /2012

Between:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda

…Plaintiff

AND


Ms. Karthiga Reddy –
CMD Director Online
Indian Operations,
Hyderabad

…Defendants

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

Filed on: 2-08-2012

Filed By: Plaintiff

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE

S.SIVA SHANKER
MOSHE MARPU
B.VIJAYA KUMAR
M.N.SREELATHA
ADVOCATES
407/6-1-9&10,
PADMARAONAGAR,
SECUNDERABAD-25.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT COURT AT LB NAGAR
O.S.No. / 2012
Between:
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Manukonda ……..Plaintiff
And
Mr.MARK ZUCKERBERG, M/s Facebook, …Defendant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
Serial . Date of Description of the Document Exhibit Page
No. Document No.s Numbers

Extract of Plaintiff as shown in the 1
1. Un-Dated Facebook with his name Ex.A1
Superior Court of California Temporary
2. 14-2-2011 order against Plaintiff Ex.A2 2-6
Created Gmail to defendant
4. 28-01-2011 Ex.A4 10
along with the cover
6. Un-Dated filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A6 17-19
7. Un-Dated filed by the defendant before US court Ex.A7 20
along
False declaration given by the Logistic
8. 31-01-2011 Manager Mr.Toddsheed against the Ex.A8 21-25
plaintiff in the US court
Stipulation order against the plaintiff by
9. 15-02-2011 superior court of California Ex.A9 26-27

Restraining order issued against the
10. 15-02-2011 plaintiff by the superior court of Ex.A10 28-31
California

11. 02-05-2011 Copy of the copy right registration in Ex.A11 32
favour of the plaintiff

Copy of the FIR 180/2011 along with
12. 09-07-2011 the complaint Ex.A12 33-37
Copy of the FIR 366/2011
13. 06-08-2011 Ex.A13 38-40
06-09-2011 Original land telephone bill of the
14. plaintiff Ex.A14 41
Copy of the Domestic Gas subscription 42
15. 11-08-2009 voucher of the plaintiff Ex.A15
Copy of the Passport along with the
16. 27-02-2007 USA VISA Ex.A16 43-45
In favour of the plaintiff

Dated 03-2-2012

Hyderabad COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

LAW OF DEFAMATION
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
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 Defamation
Regardless 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 defamatory
Any 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 plaintiff
The 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 published
Publication 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 truth
In 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
interest
It 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 had
The 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 judgment
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 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 punishment
Conclusion
The 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.

Damages suit against facebook (1)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Damages suit against facebook (1)

Similaire à Damages suit against facebook (1) (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Damages suit against facebook (1)