ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. vs RIAZ ANJUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, "IN TIME" NEWS AGENCY Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. VS RIAZ ANJUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, "IN TIME" NEWS AGENCY Ss. 3 & 9---Suit for recovery of damages on account of defamation/libel---Damages, entitlement to---Cumulative test---Applicability---Assertion of the plaintiff /Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd (Bank) was that the defendants (News Agency, Newspaper, printers and publishers), acting collusively, published a wholly false, baseless, defamatory and slanderous press story---Bank filed appeal against the order and decree passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit filed by the Appellant /Bank was decreed only to the extent of Rs.100,000/- contrary to the claim in millions---Whether the impugned order was sustainable in law and on facts, particularly regarding the quantum of damages?---While applying the settled elements /principles in the present matter, it was reflected that the suit of appellant (i.e. a State-owned Zarai Taraqiati Bank) may be maintainable in principle if it could establish that the defamatory statement caused or was likely to cause serious financial loss to its business or trading reputation, since unlike individuals, corporations cannot rely on a presumption of damage to reputation because for bodies that trade for profit (e.g. banks), the harm must equate to “serious financial loss”---Said critical distinction prevents speculative or trivial claims and ensures that only substantial harm is compensated---The corporations must adduce evidence of actual or likely financial loss resulting from the alleged defamatory publication and they must prove on the balance of probabilities that the publication was false, defamatory, published with malice and resulted in or was likely to result in serious financial loss to its business to prove loss of commercial reputation---In the present matter, the appellant established that a publication was made and that the respondents did not contest the claim, however, the appellant failed to discharge the primary burden of proof---No reliable documentary proof was produced to show the actual decline in business or to demonstrate that the publication caused or was likely to cause serious financial loss to the appellant's business or commercial reputation, which would prove defamation---Appellant did not produce financial records, loss of contracts and decline in business or any other tangible evidence of actual harm---In absence of such credible and inspiring evidence, the claim of defamation remained unsubstantiated, speculative and exaggerated---Where financial harm is to be proved, there must be evidence of its existence and extent and some data from which it may be computed, however, neither any breakup of financial loss had been given nor any explanation was offered in that behalf---Mere claim of loss of reputation without any cogent evidence would not entitle the plaintiff to bring a claim of defamation and consequentially an award of damages---If any loss is suffered it must be specifically explained and proved through cogent evidence---Such evidence must be substantiated and corroborated by harm to financial interests and mere assertion regarding the same is not maintainable for corporate entities, as the law only recognizes harm to financial interests, which results in a loss of commercial reputation---These two principles are positively interlinked in the sense that the latter cannot be proved without the former---The rationale is grounded in the commercial nature of such entities and the legal framework governing financial institutions, which limits liability to pecuniary losses directly linked to contractual or financial obligations---This ensures that claims are grounded in objective, quantifiable harm related to the institution's financial dealings---Appellant could not prove its suit---Appellate / High Court, therefore, set-aside the impugned order and the decree and the suit stood dismissed---Appeal was dismissed.

ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. vs RIAZ ANJUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, "IN TIME" NEWS AGENCY Ss — 2026 CLC 896 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC