Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt Ltd. v. Tg Shenoy & ANR.
$~1 (OS) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 371/2022 & REVIEW PET. 50/2024, I.A. 37306/2024 HACHETTE BOOK PUBLISHING INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff Through:
Ms Dahlia Sen Oberoi, Ms. Manya Kumar & Mr. Rishab Tyagi, Advs.
(M: 9871344979) versus TG SHENOY & ANR.
..... Defendants Through:
Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi & Mr. Rishubh Agarwal, Advs. for D-1.
(M: 8989518353) Mr. Deepak Gogia & Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Advs. for D-2.
(M:98101133505)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 25.10.2024 1.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. REVIEW PET.50/2024 2.
This review petition has been filed seeking modification of order dated 11th January, 2024.
3.
In the present matter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 had a dispute arising out of the publication of Gollancz Anthology of SASF Volume I. Defendant No.1 in a tweet on social media platform Twitter (now 'X') alleged that Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. has not paid the author for the story "Atonker Groho- Planet of Terror". 4.
Defendant No.1- T.G. Shenoy is a person who endorsed the book. He put out a tweet dated 29th April, 2022 making allegations against the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Plaintiff.
5.
The Plaintiff, owing to the language of the tweet, were of the opinion that the same was defamatory and derogatory as he had used the word 'cheat' in his Tweet. The Plaintiff's stand is that it had made the payment to the publisher Patra Bharati, which had in turn not paid to the author. Thus the Plaintiff could not be blamed for Patra Bharati's lapse of not making timely payment to the author. The payment was finally stated to have been done to the author's legal heirs in May, 2022. In the meantime the tweet was also removed by the Defendant No.1 after issuance of the legal notice by the Plaintiff.
6.
The prayer in this case is in respect of a derogatory remarks made on Twitter by the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff insisted for an apology and hence, the suit was continued. Mediation was also explored between the parties, however, did not work.
7.
Today, the present review petition seeking review of order dated 11th January, 2024 has been taken up for hearing. During the course of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the dispute can be resolved finally if the Defendant No.1 issues the following tweet on his Twitter handle (now 'X') to the following effect.
"Regarding my tweet of 29th April, 2022, in respect of publication of Gollancz Anthology of SASF Volume I, it has now been clarified that Hachette had paid to its local publisher Patra Bharati, who had in turn not paid to the author. This has come to my knowledge only after Hachette had shown proof of payment. This matter now stands resolved and I have no more grievances against Hachette."
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
8.
Let the above posting/tweet on the 'X' handle of the Defendant No.1 be made within 48 hours and all the persons, who were originally tagged in the tweet dated 29th April, 2022 also be tagged in this particular tweet as well.
9.
Both the parties have agreed that upon the said tweet being published, there would be no other unresolved claim and the dispute between the parties stands finally resolved.
10.
The suit is accordingly decreed in the above terms. 11.
In view of the fact that the suit is itself of 2022 and the matter has been resolved at an early date, full court fee is directed to be refunded to the Plaintiff, in terms of the judgment of the ld. Division Bench in Nutan Batra v. Buniyaad Builders [(2018) 255 DLT 696].
12.
Accordingly, the suit, along with review petition and the pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 25, 2024/dk/bh The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.