A Delhi court has refused to entertain Zee Media's plea against the non-summoning of Mahua Moitra in its criminal defamation case for referring to the channel as “uneducated” and “budbak” (stupid) [Zee Media Corporation vs State & Anr]..Additional Sessions Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court Geetanjali Goel dismissed Zee Media's revision petition on the ground of delay in filing. .Last year, a Special MP/MLA Court had summoned Moitra in the criminal defamation case filed by Zee News. The order, however, was only in relation to Moitra calling Zee News ‘chor‘ (thief) and paid news..As per Zee Media, although the summoning order was passed in September 2019, its authorized representative was able to read the detailed order only during the COVID-19 period. .After finding out that the Special MP/MLA Court had not summoned Moitra for uttering “aap log itne uneducated aur budbak hai” in relation to the channel, its authorized representative took legal advice and ultimately filed the present revision petition after a delay of 81 days. .Seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Zee Media argued that irreparable harm would be caused to it if the revision petition was not entertained. .Moitra, on the other hand, argued that there was an inordinate and wilful delay on the part of Zee Media, which had actively participated in the proceedings after the summoning order was passed. .It was also averred that the revision petition was an after-thought in as much as the same had been filed only after Moitra preferred a petition challenging the summoning order before the Delhi High Court..The State had also opposed the application seeking condonation of delay. .In view of the submissions made by the parties and the application for condonation of delay, the Court opined that Zee Media's plea was "entirely bereft of any particulars" and was not supported by any details. ."...in the present case, the application seems to have been drafted in a very casual manner and no details whatsoever are forthcoming, except for bare averments that during the COVID times, the Authorized Representative obtained the detailed summoning order and found out that the Court had not summoned the accused/ respondent No.2 for certain defamatory words whereupon the Authorized Representative of the petitioner took legal advice and instructed for filing of the revision petition.".The Court noted that it was not Zee Media's case that the copy of the order was not available or was not supplied to it. .Further, considering that Zee Media was duly represented by a counsel on every date of hearing, the Court added that Zee Media would be deemed to have knowledge of the proceedings and a plea could not be taken that the authorized representative became aware of the detailed summoning order at a later stage. .The Court thus concluded that the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition filed was without merit and ought to be dismissed.."In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the revision petition would not survive and the same is also accordingly dismissed", the Court ordered. .Advocates Vijay Aggarwal, Yugant Sharma and Samprikta Ghosal appeared for Zee Media. .APP Manoj Garg appeared for the State. .Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Adit S Pujari, Chaitanya Sundriyal, Syed Arham Masud, and Raavi Sharma appeared for Moitra. .Read the Order:
A Delhi court has refused to entertain Zee Media's plea against the non-summoning of Mahua Moitra in its criminal defamation case for referring to the channel as “uneducated” and “budbak” (stupid) [Zee Media Corporation vs State & Anr]..Additional Sessions Judge at the Rouse Avenue Court Geetanjali Goel dismissed Zee Media's revision petition on the ground of delay in filing. .Last year, a Special MP/MLA Court had summoned Moitra in the criminal defamation case filed by Zee News. The order, however, was only in relation to Moitra calling Zee News ‘chor‘ (thief) and paid news..As per Zee Media, although the summoning order was passed in September 2019, its authorized representative was able to read the detailed order only during the COVID-19 period. .After finding out that the Special MP/MLA Court had not summoned Moitra for uttering “aap log itne uneducated aur budbak hai” in relation to the channel, its authorized representative took legal advice and ultimately filed the present revision petition after a delay of 81 days. .Seeking condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Zee Media argued that irreparable harm would be caused to it if the revision petition was not entertained. .Moitra, on the other hand, argued that there was an inordinate and wilful delay on the part of Zee Media, which had actively participated in the proceedings after the summoning order was passed. .It was also averred that the revision petition was an after-thought in as much as the same had been filed only after Moitra preferred a petition challenging the summoning order before the Delhi High Court..The State had also opposed the application seeking condonation of delay. .In view of the submissions made by the parties and the application for condonation of delay, the Court opined that Zee Media's plea was "entirely bereft of any particulars" and was not supported by any details. ."...in the present case, the application seems to have been drafted in a very casual manner and no details whatsoever are forthcoming, except for bare averments that during the COVID times, the Authorized Representative obtained the detailed summoning order and found out that the Court had not summoned the accused/ respondent No.2 for certain defamatory words whereupon the Authorized Representative of the petitioner took legal advice and instructed for filing of the revision petition.".The Court noted that it was not Zee Media's case that the copy of the order was not available or was not supplied to it. .Further, considering that Zee Media was duly represented by a counsel on every date of hearing, the Court added that Zee Media would be deemed to have knowledge of the proceedings and a plea could not be taken that the authorized representative became aware of the detailed summoning order at a later stage. .The Court thus concluded that the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition filed was without merit and ought to be dismissed.."In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the revision petition would not survive and the same is also accordingly dismissed", the Court ordered. .Advocates Vijay Aggarwal, Yugant Sharma and Samprikta Ghosal appeared for Zee Media. .APP Manoj Garg appeared for the State. .Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Adit S Pujari, Chaitanya Sundriyal, Syed Arham Masud, and Raavi Sharma appeared for Moitra. .Read the Order:
