Medhavi Skills University vs Nikita Thakuria on 1 July, 2025

0
1



Medhavi Skills University vs Nikita Thakuria on 1 July, 2025


Calcutta High Court

Medhavi Skills University vs Nikita Thakuria on 1 July, 2025

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

O-116
                                                             ORDER SHEET

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                              IA NO. GA/3/2025
                                      IN
                                CS/169/2024

                  MEDHAVI SKILLS UNIVERSITY, SIKKIM
                                 VS
                          NIKITA THAKURIA




  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 1st July, 2025
Appearance:

Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Adv.

Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw, Adv.

Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv.

Ms. Monalisa Maity, Adv.

For plaintiff
Ms. Monika Kalra, Adv.

Mr. Debarshi Das, Adv.

Ms. Prerana Vishwas, Adv.

Mr. Shantam Gulati, Adv.

Mr. Saswata Tripathi, Adv.

For defendant/applicant

The Court :- Affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today is taken on record.

This is an application for return of the plaint by the defendant on the

ground that no part of the cause of action has accrued within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court. The principal argument is that the defendant

ordinarily resides at Gauhati, Assam. The defendant on being selected went

to Sikkim to perform the job of a management trainee. The defendant, while

working at Sikkim, allegedly faced certain unpleasant situation in

connection whereof the defendant had published and/or posted certain
2

material in the social media through internet. This, according to the plaintiff,

has tarnished its image thereby defaming the plaintiff leading to the

institution of the suit for defendants. Admittedly the plaintiff has its

registered office at Delhi and its head office at Bidhannagar, Kolkata. The

plaintiff says that since it has its headquarter at Kolkata, the plaintiff is

entitled to file and maintain the suit before this Court and that this Court

has the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit.

The plaintiff has relied upon Section 19 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court reported in (2007) 15 SCC 52 (Jageshwari Devi and Others Vs.

Shatrughan Ram) . Relying upon the provisions of Section 19 and the ratio

laid down in Jageshwari(supra), it is submitted by the plaintiff that the issue

raised by the defendant can at the highest be an preliminary issue to be

decided at the trial and cannot be a ground for return of the plaint.

The plaintiff has also relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court

delivered on 16th August, 2026 in Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Tara Kerkar & Ors.. Relying upon the said judgment, it is submitted by the

plaintiff that by putting defamatory material on internet, territorial

jurisdiction does not remain confined to the place of actual defamation and

in a case of defamation being telecasted, Section 20 of CPC will have no

application. The places where the actual defamation takes place and the

place where such defamatory material is transmitted through website,

telecast, etc, the Courts in both the places have the territorial jurisdiction to
3

receive, try and determine the suit in ordinary course according to the

plaintiff.

Responding to this contention of the plaintiff, it is submitted by the

defendant that the defendant is an ordinary resident of Gauhati and she was

working at Sikkim so the place wherefrom the alleged defamatory materials

can or could have been posted is either at Gauhati or at Sikkim but not at

Kolkata.

Assuming without admitting that such defamatory materials have

been read at Kolkata then also the damages, if any, due to such alleged

defamatory statements have taken place at Bidhannagar outside the

jurisdiction of this Court and, as such, this Court in any event does not have

the jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit.

The arguments could not be concluded.

Let this matter appear on 3rd July, 2025.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

Sb/

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Find people with high expectations and a low tolerance...

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Find people with high expectations and a low tolerance...

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Find people with high expectations and a low tolerance...