IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

AT Saket, ALLAHABAD
CIVIL SUIT NO..../2017

UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
IN THE MATTER OF

SANJAY SINGH______________________APPEALANT

VERSUS

NIKHIL SONI_________________________RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALANT

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF

APPEALANT

TEAM CODE NO. c24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. LIST OF REFERENCES/INDEX OF AUTHORITY
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS/SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7. STATEMENT OF PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
8. PRAYER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH

¶¶ PARAGRAPHS

CPC CIVIL PROCEDURE COURT

r/w READ WITH

u/s UNDER SECTIONS

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/LIST OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUES
 Section 96 of the Code of The Civil Procedure, 1908

2. WEBSITES
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS ENDORSED HIS PLEADINGS THROUGH THE SPECIAL

LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, IN THE MATTER OF MR.
RAM ARORA VS. BUNGEE JUMPING MASTERS, UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1908. IN RESPONSE TO THE PETETION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT. THE LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THE
MATTER HAS NOW BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 On 15th November 2012, Aditi Ranawat, a Bhojpuri film actress wrote a tweet opposed to
Nikhil Soni, a bollywood actor from her account on 15th November,2012. She said
“Nikhil Soni is a molester and has assaulted may aspiring actors in the film industry. I am
the latest victim”.
 On 18rd November 2012, Nikhil Soni’s personal secretary Sunil Kumar denied the
abovesaid allegations, demanding an unconditional apology from Aditi Ranawat for
defaming Nikhil Soni, failing which criminal and civil proceedings would be initiated
against her.
 On 25th November and 28th November 2012 Aditi Ranawat sent the following tweets
respectively: -
1. I wish to live and die with dignity. #PinkDignity
2. Time and distance heals but the fear remains. # PinkDignity
 On 26th December 2012, Sanjay Singh, a fan of Aditi Ranawat retweeted Aditi
Ranawat’s tweet of 15th November on his Twitter account @SanjaySingh101. On 27th
December 2012, the following tweet appeared on his account: -
Molesters should be punished and the legal system should not let them go free.
#Justice4Aditi #BollywoodSexism #UncouthBollywood #PinkDignity
 On 22th January 2013, a civil suit of defamation was filed against Sanjay Singh before
the Gautam Buddh Nagar Civil Judge (Senior Division) seeking damages of Rupees 1
Crore (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-).
 During the court proceedings the following facts were proved: -
Sanjay Singh deals in real estate by profession and has an office in Sector Alpha-1,
Greater Noida since 1991.
Neelam Soni, the wife of Nikhil Soni, went to the National School of Drama (NSD) in
1997 and later started her own production company, Living Tree Pictures in 2004.
Neelam Soni obtained an order from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mumbai under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005
against her husband in August 2008.
Neelam Soni’s application under Section 12 of the abovesaid Act was withdrawn in
September 2008.
Sanjay Singh has given 4 videos to merinews.com as a citizen journalist in 2012.
Sanjay Singh has applied for membership in the Delhi Press Club on 3rd December 2012.

The suit was decided in favour of Nikhil Soni on 8th August 2017 and Sanjay Singh has
now approached the Allahabad High Court in appeal.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. The case is maintainable or not.

2. Is appellant held liable under defamation.
3. Whether the statement made by the appellant is in good faith.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the case is maintainable.

Yes, the case is maintainable and has been justified under section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure,1908.

2. Is appellant held liable under defamation.

The appellant is not held liable under defamation as the statement made by the
appellant does not mention about the Respondent.

3. Whether the statement made by the appellant is in good faith.

Yes, the statement made by the appellant is in good faith as the respondent was a
fan and a well-wisher of the appellant. He supported the film actress Aditi
Ranawat.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. This case is maintainable or not.

Yes, this case is maintainable or justified as it has been filed under section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 which states that “appeal from original decree- save where
otherwise expressly provided in the body of this code or by any other law for the time
being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising
original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such
court, an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte, no appeal shall lie from
a decree passed by the court with the consent of parties, no appeal shall lie, except on a
question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by courts of small
causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not
exceed ten thousand rupees”.1

This case is justified and does not comes under defamation as the appellant has not
mentioned about the respondent in his retweet, it was just a general statement that
supported the film actress Aditi Ranawat. Article 19 (1)(A) of The Indian Constitution
states ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’. Appellant has right to ‘Freedom of Speech
and Expression’ and keeping his opinion in front of the court.

2. Is appellant held liable under defamation.

In the above case, appellant is not liable under defamation as defamation consists of
elements which must be proved such as
1. Statement should be untrue
2. Statement should be related to the plaintiff
3. Statement should be defamatory
1
Section 96 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, anonymous, available at
http://www.lawzonline.com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/section96-code-of-civil-procedure.htm , last seen on
8/11/2017
 4. Statement must be published by the appellant

In the retweet, the appellant has not mentioned about the respondent and also it was not
clearly stated that respondent has harassed the film actress and must be punished. It was just a
retweet that supported the actress. This case can be referred as ‘innocent dissemination’ which
states that “it is a defence that can be invoked by those who are accused of libel through the
publication of the written word or images. For the defense to be successful the defendant must
prove that they had no knowledge that what they published was defamatory, had no reason to
believe that the material would contain libel, and also that this lack of knowledge was due to
negligence on their part.”2

3. Whether the statement made by the appellant is in good faith.

Yes, the statement made by the appellant was in good faith as he acknowledged himself
as a fan and a well-wisher of Aditi Ranawat. It was mentioned in the tweet that Aditi
Ranawat has been molested by Nikhil Soni and to support her, he retweeted that
molesters must get punishment. He did not believe in the facts, he only wrote in support
of Aditi Ranawat. In “Tsc Wai Paul v. Chang (2001), it was mentioned that comment
which falls within objective limits of the evidence of fair comment can loose its
immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view that he
expressed. Honestly of the belief is the touchstone.”3 The tweet made by the appellant
was fair and in good faith.

PRAYER

2
Law on the web, anonymous, available at https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/defences-of-defamation ,
last seen on 8/11/2017
3
Online defamation and various legal issues, Vibhor Verdhan, available at
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l380-Online-Defamation.html ,last seen on 8/11/2017
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that the Honourable High Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that:

1. Proving that the case is maintainable.

2. Appellant should not be held liable for defamation.
3. Proving that the statement was made in good faith.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

 AT Saket, ALLAHABAD

UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF THE

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

SANJAY SINGH________________APPEALANT

VERSUS

NIKHIL SONI______________RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT
TEAM CODE NO.

INDEX
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. LIST OF REFERENCES/INDEX OF AUTHORITY
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENTS OF FACTS
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS/SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
7. STATEMENTS OF PLEADINGS/ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.
8. PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ PARAGRAPH

¶¶ PARAGRAPHS

CPC CIVIL PROCEDURE COURT

r/w READ WITH

u/s UNDER SECTIONS

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

LIST OF REFERENCES/INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUTES
 Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

2. WEBSITES
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS ENDORSED HIS PLEADINGS THROUGH THE SPECIAL

LEAVE PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, IN THE MATTER OF MR.
RAM ARORA VS. BUNGEE JUMPING MASTERS, UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1908. IN RESPONSE TO THE PETETION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT. THE LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THE
MATTER HAS NOW BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
• On 15th November 2012, Aditi Ranawat, a Bhojpuri film actress wrote a tweet opposed
to Nikhil Soni, a bollywood actor from her account on 15th November,2012. She said “Nikhil
Soni is a molester and has assaulted may aspiring actors in the film industry. I am the latest
victim”.

• On 18rd November 2012, Nikhil Soni’s personal secretary Sunil Kumar denied the
abovesaid allegations, demanding an unconditional apology from Aditi Ranawat for defaming
Nikhil Soni, failing which criminal and civil proceedings would be initiated against her.

• On 25th November and 28th November 2012 Aditi Ranawat sent the following tweets
respectively: -

1. I wish to live and die with dignity. #PinkDignity

2. Time and distance heals but the fear remains. # PinkDignity

• On 26th December 2012, Sanjay Singh, a fan of Aditi Ranawat retweeted Aditi
Ranawat’s tweet of 15th November on his Twitter account @SanjaySingh101. On 27th
December 2012, the following tweet appeared on his account: -

Molesters should be punished and the legal system should not let them go free. #Justice4Aditi
#BollywoodSexism #UncouthBollywood #PinkDignity

• On 22th January 2013, a civil suit of defamation was filed against Sanjay Singh before
the Gautam Buddh Nagar Civil Judge (Senior Division) seeking damages of Rupees 1 Crore (Rs.
1,00,00,000/-).

• During the court proceedings the following facts were proved: -

Sanjay Singh deals in real estate by profession and has an office in Sector Alpha-1, Greater
Noida since 1991.
Neelam Soni, the wife of Nikhil Soni, went to the National School of Drama (NSD) in 1997 and
later started her own production company, Living Tree Pictures in 2004.

Neelam Soni obtained an order from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai
under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against her
husband in August 2008.

Neelam Soni’s application under Section 12 of the abovesaid Act was withdrawn in September
2008.

Sanjay Singh has given 4 videos to merinews.com as a citizen journalist in 2012.

Sanjay Singh has applied for membership in the Delhi Press Club on 3rd December 2012.

The suit was decided in favour of Nikhil Soni on 8th August 2017 and Sanjay Singh has now
approached the Allahabad High Court in appeal.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether this case falls under defamation.
2. Whether retweeting a tweet leads to defamation.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether this case falls under defamation.

Yes, this case falls under defamation as defamation leads to insulting someone’s reputation in
front of others. In the above case, the appellant has made a defamatory statement against the
respondent by retweeting a tweet.

2. Whether retweeting a tweet leads to defamation.

Yes, retweeting a tweet leads to defamation as retweeting means giving importance to a
statement which was made earlier and again defaming it in front of others.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANDCED

1.Whether this case falls under elements of defamation.

Yes, this case falls under defamation as “defamation is an all-encompassing term that covers any
statement that hurts someone’s reputation. If the statement made is in writing and published, the
defamation is called libel, If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is known as slander”.4
The above case can be taken into consideration as ‘libel’ as the statement mentioned was in a
permanent form i.e. writing or tweeting. Defamatory statement consists of elements such as -

 Exposing plaintiff to hostility, obloquy, contempt, or

 Injuring the plaintiff in his business or profession
 Doing something which can cause of being ashamed or avoided by the
neighbours.

The above case is ‘defamation of public figures’ as Nikhil Soni is a famous Bollywood actor
who has a vast public following and he has been defamed by the Appellant.

3. Whether retweeting a tweet leads to defamation.

Yes, retweeting a tweet leads to defamation The Supreme Court on Friday directed the
Delhi High Court to expeditiously decide by September 25 the petition filed by Aam
Admi Party (AAP) spokesperson Raghav Chadha in the defamation case filed by Union
Minister Arun Jaitley. He also opposed the appearance of two senior advocates Mukul
Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra for Jaitley without the court’s notice to them. Rohatgi and
4
Defamation law: the basics , anonymous , available at http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-
injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html ,last seen on 8/11/2017
 Luthra argued that the case got delayed in the lower court and high court because the
accused was held liable. Instead of retweeting it before it was made later.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that the Honourable High Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that:

1.