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
2material 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
3receive, 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/