S C Gupta vs Director General All India Radio

$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 05 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010540372026
+ W.P.(C) 16608/2026
S C GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL ALL INDIA RADIO .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ
thereby directing the respondent to pay a sum of ₹10 crores as
damages towards alleged defamation, mental agony, physical and
social harassment and suffering caused to the petitioner purportedly
arising from the wrong statement given by the Deputy Director
General of All India Radio before the Sole Arbitrator which
culminated in the award dated 31.12.2019.
2. Briefly, as discernible from the pleadings, the petitioner,
proprietor of M/s Electronic Enterprises, claims that certain disputes
arose out of a tender floated by DGS&D in the year 1988 for
procurement of microphones, in which the petitioner claims to have
participated. The principal grievance of the petitioner appears to be
stemming from a statement made by one Shri Vijay Prakash Yadav,
Deputy Director General, All India Radio, during the arbitral
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15
W.P.(C) 16608/2026 Page 1 of 4

proceedings stating that the officers of All India Radio had visited the
factory of AKG Acoustics (India) at Gurgaon whereas the petitioner’s
factory at Jaipur had not been inspected. It is the petitioner’s case that
the said statement is incorrect and the petitioner consequently also
seeks production of inspection report allegedly pertaining to October
1988 besides compensation to the tune of ₹10 crores towards
defamation, harassment and mental agony.
3. Having carefully considered the pleadings and the documents
placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the no relief can be
granted to the petitioner in the facts of the present case for the
following reasons.
4. Firstly, the present petition, as is apparent from the factual
matrix, ought not to be entertained on account of delay and laches.
The fulcrum of the petitioner’s case finds its genesis from a tender that
was floated in the year 1988 and a capacity report that was also
generated in October 1988. The alleged statement, which is now
pressed forth as the primary source of grievance, was also made
during the arbitral proceedings and stands recorded in the award dated
31.12.2019. The present writ petition has only been preferred in
October 2026. The petitioner thus essentially seeks to rekindle matters
that originated more than three decades ago, and also a statement
made in arbitral proceedings that stood culminated in an award almost
seven years prior to the filing of the present petition. While this Court
is conscious that no statutory timeline is ascribed to the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15
W.P.(C) 16608/2026 Page 2 of 4

unexplained delay and laches disentitles the litigant from grant of
discretionary relief.
5. Secondly, the petitioner himself was the claimant in the arbitral
proceedings wherein the alleged incorrect statement was furnished by
Shri Vijay Prakash Yadav, Deputy Director General, All India Radio.
As is apparent from a reading of the arbitral award, it is recorded that
the material facts stated by the said witness remained uncontroverted
in the cross examination. The arbitral award dated 30.12.2019
thereafter directed payment of ₹1 lakh with interest @9% to the
petitioner and rejected all other claims of the petitioner. Interestingly,
the present petition does not seek any remedy against the award itself.
Instead, what is sought to be raised as an independent claim, is
premised upon the testimony of one witness who formed part of the
very arbitral proceedings in which the petitioner was the claimant.
Having participated in the proceedings and having had the opportunity
to test the testimony of the witness, the petitioner cannot, especially
after a lapse of almost 7 years, use the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
as a collateral forum to reopen the factual controversy that already
stands settled by the award.
6. Furthermore, the controversy pointed out by the petitioner in
the present case, as noted above, stems from an allegedly wrongful or
defamatory statement. The said question necessarily involves
examination of disputed questions of facts as to whether the statement
was false, whether the said statement was made knowingly, whether
the alleged injury bears causal relationship to the conduct complained
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15
W.P.(C) 16608/2026 Page 3 of 4

of or the like. Such questions cannot anyway be delved into while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
especially when it involves factual controversy originating as early as
1988.
7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that the present petition is devoid of merit and does
not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. The present petition is accordingly dismissed, along with
pending application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15
W.P.(C) 16608/2026 Page 4 of 4