1. The plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity within the city of Kolkata and its adjoining districts in West Bengal, by virtue of an agreement between the State of West Bengal and the plaintiff.

2. The defendant no.1 is a Company, namely, 3 Cheers Entertainments Private Limited, engaged in telecasting a daily programme “Khoj Khabar” on Akash Bangla Channel, wherein the defendant no.2 is the Director of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.3 is the anchor person/presenter of the said “Khoj Khabar” programme.

3. The daily programme used to telecast between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. in the evening and with a repeat telecast in the following day morning between 8.55 a.m. and 9.25 a.m.

4. On or about 12th March, 2004 at 10 p.m., the defendants started its programme “Khoj Khabar” published and telecast by stating that the defendants had launched a campaign to stop the “Mafia – giri” of CESC Ltd., and accused the State Government and the administration to having handed over the bare minimum right of enjoying electricity of the public at large to a “Tughlaqui” company which indulges in “goondami”.

5. The defendants tried to portray that CESC was engaged in rampant illegal activities and were extorting monies from their consumers on false pretext. The programme started by a declaration that the defendants intended to expose the ‘Mafiagiri’ of CESC and went on to label CESC as ‘Tughlaqui’ company. Thereafter the programme then began giving alleged examples of the ‘Goondami’ of CESC and referred to its activities as ‘Zoolumbazi’ and openly alleged that CESC had become a ‘Big thief’.

6. The language used throughout the programme was defamatory and abusive, but there was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and the programme even started ridiculing the employees of CESC portraying them as devils and associating them with backdrops of Osama Bin Laden and some other terrorists.

7. An employee of the plaintiff, namely, Mr. Anirban Raha, employed as an Assistant Manager, Loss Control Cell, was shown as a bald headed person with a French-cut beard, having the effect of a devilish personality in a cartoon film through caricature.

8. After first telecast of the programme on 12th March, 2004, Sri Dilip Sen, the Executive Director of the plaintiff Company, on 15th March, 2004, gave an interview to the representatives of the defendant no.1 and explained that the portrayal of CESC in various aspects of the programme was untrue. However, despite collecting information and recording of statements from CESC, instead of telecasting true and actual facts, the defendant in its subsequent telecast again indulged into making derogatory imputations against the plaintiff by misrepresenting the explanations given by CESC.

9. On 29th March, 2004, between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m., there was a further telecast where the defendants were suppose to telecast the interview and the truthful narration of the events about CESC but in fact they simply repeated the excerpts of the programme telecasted on 12th March, 2004.

10. On 30th April, 2004, between 10.00 PM to 10.30 PM and on 1st May, 2004, between 8.55 AM to 9.25 AM, the defendants published by telecast in “Khoj Khabar” once again excerpts from the publications made on 12th March, 2004. It is the case of the plaintiff that the telecast made by the defendants is defamatory and intending to bring the plaintiff into ridicule, hatred, disrepute and contempt of its consumers and right thinking members of society.

11. On 6th May, 2004, the plaintiff through its Advocate issued a letter to the defendant nos.1 to 3, calling upon them, to undertake not to publish similar telecast and to immediately issue an unequivocal public retraction and make a publication of the same by the same telecast but even after receipt of the said notice, the defendants failed to withdraw the defamatory publication against the plaintiff.

12. As the defendants in spite of receipt of notice from the plaintiff, failed to withdraw the defamatory telecast, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs:

                     “a) Decree for Rs.25 crores against the defendants and each one of them;

                     b) Alternatively an enquiry be made by this Hon'ble Court as to the damages suffered by the plaintiff and a decree for such sum as may be found due on such enquiry;

                     c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them, their servants, agents and assigns from publishing and/or causing to be published by telecasts the recorded matter or words used in the course of the telecasts and/or causing to be published by telecasts the recorded matter or words used in the course of the telecasts, defamatory of the plaintiff and in particular words that are similar to those contained in the programme / telecasts dated 12th March, 2004, 29th March, 2004 and 30th April, 2004.

                     d) A decree for delivery of and cancellation of all documents, materials, tapes, films and documentary evidence used to and/or connected with the telecast of the programme "Khoj Khabar" on 12.3.2004 29.3.2004 and 30.04.2004 at 10 p.m. on Khoj Khabar.”

13. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have filed their combined written statement and the defendant no.3 has filed his separate written statement. It is the case of the defendant nos.1 and 2 that the defendant no.1 is engaged in telecasting a daily programme which runs under the name and style of “Khoj Khabar” in which some unrevealed truth are being focused before the citizens of India to enlighten them about the real facts and circumstances, so that they cannot fall into the hope of the Companies and other personnel.

14. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has asked the defendants for assistance to identify the power theft through their Memo dated 2nd February, 2008, which proves that the defendants have been showing the right thing to the citizens of India. It is the case of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 that they have made the telecast in good faith.

15. The case of the defendant no.3 is that he is a professional Anchor and is engaged in various television programmes and live functions. As a professional actor, he had only played the role of an anchor of the programme “Khoj Khabar” which was a production of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. He stated that being an anchor of the programme “Khoj Khabar”, he used to read out script which were given to him by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and he had no power or authority to edit the scripts.

16. It is the further case of the defendant no.3 that he is not related to the management of the defendant no.1 company nor he is the in charge of any documents, films, CD or any materials whatsoever connected with the programme or telecast. He submits that before programme, the telecast in television goes through several processes and stages and after completion of all formalities, the anchor is called for only reading and presenting the final script before the camera without any addition or alteration as per the direction of the director of the concern programme.

17. The defendant no.3 says that the anchor has no right, title and interest or authority and responsibility over the languages of a script in any manner at any stages. He says that the defendant no.3 stopped anchoring in the television programme of “Khoj Khabar” produced by the defendant no.1 company and directed by the defendant no.2 and he has cut all other professional connections with the defendant nos. 1 and 2 with effect from August, 2005.

18. The plaintiff has examined his witness but the defendants have not examined any witness.

19. Both the parties have filed their written notes of arguments and the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argues the matter on merit.

20. In the meantime, the defendant nos.1, 2 and the defendant no.3 have filed their apology in writing after serving the copy to the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The Counsel for the plaintiff after taking instructions, has submitted that the plaintiff has accepted the apology submitted by the defendants but he prays for passing necessary order with regard to the cost and damages.

21. The Apology filed by the defendants nos. 1 and 2, reads as follows:

                     “To,

                     CESC LIMITED

                     CESC House,

                     1, Chowringhee Sqaure.

                     Kolkata – 700001

                     CS/126/2004

                     In The Matter Of:

                     C.E.S.C LTD.

                     ............ Petitioners

                     And

                     THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENTS LTD. AND ORS. ............ Respondent No.1

                     Undertaking of Apology of Respondent No. 1 & 2

                     I, Mr. Dibyojyoti Basu, s/o Late Shri Satyabrata Basu, aged about 67 years, resident of 44, Model Town, Balia, Garia, Kolkata-700084, do hereby solemnly declare and affirm that I am the authorised representative of Respondent No. 1 and as such I am competent to undertake as under:

                     1. Respondent No. 1 was a reputed media production house having produced successful television programmes in Bengali for leading Bengali channel (AKASH BANGLA) One of the programmes, Khoj Khabar was a frontrunner in investigative journalism for nearly two decades and was engaged in the business of broadcasting numerous socio-political issues of West Bengal and other relevant regions through the light of investigative journalism.

                     2. Pursuant to the injunction order of this Honourable Court, the said episode has been taken off all media of circulation, and no further dissemination has taken place for over the last 15 years.

                     3. It is humbly submitted that Khoj Khabar has been off-air for the last 15 years and over the last decade or so the Respondent company has been defunct. I, personally, as a senior citizen, have withdrawn from active journalism ever since.

                     4. In light of the change circumstances, I deeply regret the events leading to the filing of the captioned suit and render my unconditional apology to the Petitioners and its competent functionaries insofar as it concerns the subject matter of the captioned suit.

                     5. I affirm that the content of the impugned episodes are being unconditionally revoked, over and above the fact that it has not been disseminated to any public or private network for a substantial period of time and the same is not retrievable or accessible by any public or private network.

                     6. I express my sincere desire not to agitate the matter any further and apologies for the inconvenience caused to all parties in the suit due to the actions of the Respondent.

                     7. I humbly request the Hon'ble Court to kindly accept this undertaking of apology on behalf of Respondent and pass any suitable order that will lead to a speedy resolution.

                     For & on behalf of

                     THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENTS LTD.

                     [Respondents No.1]

                     Dibyojyoti Basu

                     Respondent No.2

                     Dated: 24th December, 2025.”

22. The Appology filed by the defendant no.3, reads as follows:

                     “CESC LIMITED

                     CESC House,

                     1, Chowringhee Sqaure.

                     Kolkata – 700001

                     CS/126/2004

                     CESC Limited

                     ...........Plaintiff

                     Vs

                     Three Cheers Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

                     ............Defendants

                     Tender of Apology by Defendant No.3

                     I, Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay, s/o TAPANANGSHU BHUSAN MUKHERJEE, aged about 65 years, resident of 84/2, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata – 700034, do hereby solemnly declare and state that I was an employee of the Defendant No.1 and have been arraigned as the Defendant No.3 in the above suit. In such capacity I am competent to undertake as under:

                     1. The Defendant No.1 was a reputed media production house having produced successful television programmes in Bengali for a leading Bengali channel identified under the name and style of AKASH BANGLA. One of the programmes telecast on the said channel was 'Khoj Khabar', which broadcasted numerous socio-political issues of West Bengal and other relevant regions for nearly two decades through investigative journalism. I was the anchor of the said programme.

                     2. The episodes of Khoj Khabar which were telecast on 12th March, 2004, 29th March, 2004 and 30th April, 2004 comprised broadcast content relating to practices purportedly adopted by the Plaintiff in the course of distributing electricity. In the course of anchoring such episodes, remarks made by me in my professional capacity caused harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff and its officials.

                     3. In hindsight, I now realize that the broadcast content wrongly projected an incorrect state of affairs and misled the innocent audience into believing the same to be true, thereby denigrating the image and esteem of the Plaintiff and its officials. I sincerely regret that such unfortunate incidents led to the filing of the above suit. I tender my unconditional apology to the Plaintiff and its officials insofar as it concerns the subject matter of the captioned suit.

                     4. Pursuant to the injunction order of this Hon'ble Court, the said episodes have been taken off all media circulation and no further dissemination of such broadcast content has taken place over the last 15 years.

                     5. It is humbly submitted that Khoj Khabar has been off-air for the last 15 years and over the last decade or so the Defendant company has been defunct. I confirm that the content of the impugned episodes have not been disseminated to any public or private network for a substantial period of time and the same is also not retrievable or accessible by any public or private network.

                     6. Notwithstanding the discharge of responsibilities in my professional capacity, I express my sincere apologies to the Plaintiff and its officials for the disrepute and inconvenience caused to them due to actions which were motivated by an incorrect perception. I desire that the apology hereby tendered be accepted by the Plaintiff and accordingly the matter be resolved without any further agitation.

                     7. I humbly submit that the Hon'ble High Court kindly takes cognizance of the apology hereby tendered and passes a suitable order that will lead to a speedy resolution.

                     Krishna Kishore Mukhopadhyay

                     [Defendant No.3].”

23. The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming damages on the pretext that the defendants have telecast defamatory allegation against the plaintiff and even after clarifying that the telecast is not correct. The plaintiff has also issued notice for withdrawing the telecast made against the plaintiff company but the defendants have not withdrawn and forced the plaintiff to file the present suit.

24. The plaintiff has filed the suit in the year 2004. The defendants have filed their respective written statement by denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff has adduced evidence to prove its case and the defendants have cross examined the plaintiff’s witness but have not adduced any evidence in support of their case.

25. Now, the defendants have filed their apology in writing. It is the specific statement of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 that after the interim order passed by this Court, the episode has been taken off all media of circulation and no further dissemination has taken place for the last 15 years. It is also stated that “Khoj Khabar” has been off air for the last 15 years and over the last decades, the defendant company has been defunct. The defendant no.2 being the senior citizen, have withdrawn from active journalism. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 deeply regret the events leading to filing of the suit and render their unconditional apology. It is further stated that they will not agitate the matter any further.

26. The defendant no.3 has also tendered his unconditional apology to the plaintiff and its officials and prayed for acceptance of his apology.

27. This Court finds that the plaintiff has filed the suit in the year 2004 and since than the plaintiff is proceeding the suit and the defendants are contesting the said suit. Now at the end, the defendants have submitted their unconditional apology.

28. The suit is pending for adjudication since 2004 and at the end, the defendants have filed the unconditional apology and the plaintiff has accepted the same but at the same time Mr. Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff prays for passing decree by directing the defendants to pay some token amount as damages.

29. Taking into consideration of the unconditional apology, age and stage of the suit, this Court direct the defendants to pay damage of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each in total Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the plaintiff as damages. The defendants are also directed to pay cost of the suit of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).

30. C.S. No. 126 of 2004 is disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.