Bombay High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Defamation Suits

Section 19 of CPC Governs Defamation Suits; Clause 12 Leave Not Mandatory

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has clarified the jurisdictional complexities involved in defamation suits filed within its original civil jurisdiction. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne in the case of Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi v. Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh, addressing whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) applies to defamation suits and whether Clause 12 leave under the Letters Patent is mandatory.

The plaintiff, Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi, alleged defamation by the defendants through social media and press channels, claiming the defamatory content damaged his reputation in Mumbai. The defendants contended that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction since the defamatory actions originated outside Mumbai, and the plaintiff resided in Aurangabad.

Justice Marne adjudicated that Section 19 CPC, which provides jurisdiction based on the place where the wrong is done or felt, applies to defamation suits. The court emphasized that under Section 19, the jurisdiction could be invoked where the effect of the defamatory act is felt, allowing the plaintiff to file suit in Mumbai despite the defendants' residence in Pune and Aurangabad.

The court further clarified that Section 120 CPC excludes Sections 16, 17, and 20 from application to High Courts exercising original civil jurisdiction, but deliberately retains Section 19. This retention implies that suits for compensation for wrongs done to the person or movables, such as defamation, do not require leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, as the jurisdiction is established under Section 19.

Justice Marne cited previous judgments, including State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Industries and Indian Potash Ltd. v. Media Contents and Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., to support the interpretation that "wrong done" in Section 19 includes the effect felt, not just the initial act.

Ultimately, the court held that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, rejecting the defendants' objections and allowing the plaintiff to pursue his claims without seeking Clause 12 leave. The judgment reinforces the principle that defamation suits can be instituted where the reputation is impacted, providing plaintiffs with greater flexibility in choosing their forum.

The interim application for further ad-interim injunctions is scheduled for consideration on November 3, 2025, with ad-interim relief continuing until then.

Bottom Line:

Jurisdiction for defamation suits under Section 19 CPC - Place where defamatory content is felt or suffered by the plaintiff determines jurisdiction. No need to seek leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent if jurisdiction is established under Section 19 CPC.

Statutory provision(s): Section 19 CPC, Section 120 CPC, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent

Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi v. Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804370