sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1709505117765136711?t=G0DElb0IAcfdtdkSzmRrBg&s=08 [10/4, 15:38] sekarreporter1: 04.10.2023 To, Mrs.Narmadha Sampath Advocate. 04.10.2023 To, Mrs.Narmadha Sampath Advocate No.88/30 AA Block, 1st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 Madam, Sub: Rejoinder to your reply letter dated 03.10.2023- Defamation action- Breach of agreement- Cheque dishonour- Compliance of notice dated 03.10.2023-Reg Ref: 1. Legal Notice dated 03.10.2023 by ASICON 2. Reply dated 03.10.2023 by Mr.AR.Rahman

[10/4, 15:38] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1709505117765136711?t=G0DElb0IAcfdtdkSzmRrBg&s=08
[10/4, 15:38] sekarreporter1: 04.10.2023
To,
Mrs.Narmadha Sampath
Advocate
No.88/30 AA Block, 1st Street,
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040

Madam,
Sub: Rejoinder to your reply letter dated 03.10.2023- Defamation action- Breach of
agreement- Cheque dishonour- Compliance of notice dated 03.10.2023-Reg
Ref: 1. Legal Notice dated 03.10.2023 by ASICON
2. Reply dated 03.10.2023 by Mr.AR.Rahman

My client has gone through the contents of your client’s reply dated 03.10.2023 received via email and would like to place their preliminary objections on the veracity of the contents stipulated thereunder and the respective denials.

1. My client states that due to the paucity of time, they reiterate the contents of their legal notice dated 03.10.2023 to be the stand taken in the present dispute.

2. My client states that your client’s reply is cryptic and has taken shelter under the garb of his repute which will not absolve anyone from a liability that will be fastened by the rudiments of law. To intimidate laymen under a guise of a public image will be a futile attempt as the corroborative evidence on record speaks otherwise. Your client’s reply replicates a vindictive agenda and condescendence which is unfortunate and not the kind of a demeanour expected out of an artist held high by the society. My client states that your client being a celebrity cannot resort to such threats which is defamatory in nature against an association of Doctors who wanted nothing but to watch the performance of your client. The reply of your client exudes an attitude of superiority and disrespect towards the people who have nothing but respect for your client.

3. My client states that your client is approbating and reprobating on his stand while his first press release was his unequivocal admission of receiving the advance amount from my client which according to him was non-refundable. In a vindictive move, your client now denies the agreement or receiving any payment from my client. This contradiction would suffice on the motive behind it. My client states that your client has to be made legally aware the consequences of his contradictions before mudslinging my client. They state that there is no plausible reason for your client to be agitated while he has made such an admission before the public and the proof of the same is available in the public domain.

4. My client states that your client’s notice is starkly silent on the stand taken by him as far as the performance agreement dated 06.08.2018 is concerned. It is very ambiguous to infer from your client’s reply if he is disputing the fact that an agreement solely entered into for his performance is accepted or denied. In the case of the latter, your client has not initiated any proceedings against Mr.Senthil Velan to have entered into a performance agreement without prior permission or authorisation from your client. My client states that it is practically impossible to premise an agreement solely on your client who is a renowned artist. It is not the case of your client that the dates, payment schedule and all other arrangements were carried out by Mr.Senthil Velan without his knowledge either.

5. My client states that instead of addressing the focal issue, your client has harped on alleged fictitious defamatory acts by clients that are not even existing to begin with. The tenors of submission by my client in their notice dated 03.10.2023 will speak for itself wherein no defamatory intent could be drawn upon and instead within few minutes of issuance of your client’s reply, your client has released his reply in the media to garner publicity and repress the true facts that will not make good the loss. Further in a sad state of affairs the names of the names of the Advocates are also published for no good reason when the same is absolutely unnecessary while handling a legal issue at a preliminary stage. My client doesn’t wish to emphasise on who is engaging in dilatory tactics for cheap publicity.

6. My client states that they are an association of Doctors and have better things to do in life for example putting their professional calibre to use by treating and saving patients. Being relevant in the media for infamous causes is the last of their priority. However they state that looking at the way one sided facts have been published by your client to the media speaks volumes of the publicity that is sought after and then blaming my client for defamation is unethical. It is pertinent to point out that my client has not authorised any release of their notice when in contra it is your client’s reply that has been circulated for publicity for the reasons best known to him. My client states that they reap no benefit out of any kind of media coverage and they have noble work to pursue. They state that your client should refrain from defaming Doctors in such a manner which in itself invites defamation to them.

7. My client states that if claiming for one’s legitimate dues amounts to defamation, in that case no affected party could opt for legal remedies. My client states that as far as the averments in para 2 of your client’s reply is concerned, the same were never disputed by my client and are a matter of record. Further paras 2, 3 & 4 of my client’s legal notice dated 03.10.2023 pertain to the facts of the dispute which have no bearing to the achievements of your client that are elucidated in his reply. However my client states that this seems to be a clever endeavour by your client to evade an appropriate response to the crux of the dispute being the performer’s agreement dated 06.08.2018 which makes him responsible for the consequential acts as well.

8. My client vehemently denies the averments made in para 3 of your client’s reply to be a very feeble attempt to derail the actual issue at hand and his entire reply is only premised on vague responses without specifically addressing the issue. My client condemns the usage of the word ‘cheap publicity’ as a gimmick adopted by your client who is presently in an influential position in the society only to intimidate my client as the same is not a necessity for my client who are an association of celebrated Doctors and intellectuals themselves. It is astounding to state that your client had no privity of contract while it was your client who had redirected my client to approach Mr. Senthil Velan who is his talent manager. Further my client states that your client has nowhere in his reply mentioned that he had nothing to do with his talent manager Mr.Senthil Velan nor has he taken steps to take legal action against the said person for executing a performance agreement with your client’s name if he is vociferously disputing the same.

9. As far as your client’s allegation with respect to the amount that was paid by my client to third parties is concerned, the same is misleading and reinforces the case of my client as a very perilous stand taken in order to protect Mr.Senthil Velan who is equally responsible for all the acts. Your client has not made a whisper of his relationship with Mr.Senthil Velan who has carried out the acts with false assurances and has instead referred to vaguely as ‘third parties’. Further embroiling your client without any rhyme or reason will not enable my client to have their claims resolved without any iota of evidence which is amply clear in the present case. My client vehemently denies the fact that they entered into a transaction with third parties while the advance amount was paid only for the performance of your client. Further my client asserts that there are no presumptions or assumptions as far as this dispute is concerned and they have unimpeachable documents on record to prove the same.

10. My client humbly states that as far as their audacity to issue a legal notice that is questioned by your client, they would respectfully submit a befitting reply to the same being that everyone is equal in the eyes of law and to claim one’s legitimate dues having audacity is not the prerequisite but material evidence and true state of facts. My client further states that on the other hand your client’s reply spews threat and intimidation which is sufficient grounds for my client to initiate defamation proceedings against your client for such coercion and undue influence. They further state that one’s public image cannot act as a veil to the position of law and its enforceability.

11. My client respectfully disagrees/denies with the alleged fact that your client is not connected with the transactions while a performers agreement dated 06.08.2018 is a matter of record. Further your client did not choose to protest the same while his name as a performer is spelt out in the entire agreement and he continues to have an association for all other concerts with his talent manager Mr.Senthil Velan, the recent of all being held in August 2023.

12. My client denies the averments made in para 4 of your client’s reply primarily because it is brazen to state that your client was not aware of the transactions as the complaint was filed on 27.09.2023 against your client before the Commissioner of Police and your client has now sprung upon with a reply after receiving my client’s notice as an afterthought more specifically with contradictions.

13. My client denies the averments made by your client in para 5 of his reply as my client has waited patiently for five years with utmost respect and dignity to recover their legitimate due while they could have initiated proceedings in 2019 for the dishonour of the post-dated cheques and held everyone individually liable. My client strictly objects to the allegation pertaining to the publicity of the present dispute while it is their stand that the same has been done by your client in order to oppress my client using his public image.

14. My client submits that they refuse to recall their notice dated 03.10.2023. My client also vehemently refuses to part with any kind of public apology as this etiquette cannot be used to suppress the truth and there has to be a mutual courtesy exchanged while dealing with such issues that is unfortunately absent in your client’s reply. My client further states that they are under no obligation to pay any money to your client instead your client is held legally liable to return their refund amount as asserted in their legal notice dated 03.10.2023.

15. My client states that they do not wish to delve into the definition of ‘defamation’ alleged by your client and reserve their rights to proof the same as and when the need arises. At this juncture your client has engaged in defamatory acts which is evident by contradicting his own stand and hurling allegations without any basis. Further your client has misrepresented and concealed facts before the public and in turn demanded reputed surgeons to apologise to him for no fault of theirs. Your client has tarnished the image of the surgeons association by circulating his reply in the media and public.

16. My client states that they are ready to contest any vexatious litigation initiated by your client and will continue to prosecute and appropriate their legitimate dues. It is the case of my client that under no stretch of imagination can defamation be inferred while my client relies on material evidence that will be presented before the Courts of law. My client requests your client to act under the due process of law keeping aside his stellar status as premising his reply on the same has no bearing on the losses incurred by my client.

My client therefore calls upon your client to do the following:

A. To immediately issue an unconditional public apology to ASICON 2018 and The Association of Surgeons of India.
B. To pay a sum of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores Only) towards the defamation of Doctors and the association of surgeons within fifteen days from receipt of this notice.
C. To comply with their notice dated 03.10.2023 and refund the advance amount along with the interest.

Ms.Shabnam Banu