Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors. on 5 May, 2020 (iii) In line with the central theme, in Episode 4 of the said Web-Series titled 'Bambai Mein Bambu', the Protagonist has been shown to have a harrowing experience with an aberrant lawyer named 'Shastri' ("said lawyer") upon his arrival in Mumbai. The character of the said lawyer in the Web-Series has been shown to be of an immoral, dishonest greedy, violent, threatening lawyer with underworld connections, who not only tries to dupe the Protagonist into executing an unfavorable contract but also quotes a very high professional fee for drafting the contract. The said lawyer also later tries to coerce the Protagonist into executing another contract at gunpoint to pay 50% of all his fee for comedy performance to Shastri on an ongoing basis, at which juncture the Protagonist murders him. Subsequent to this instance, in sync with the theme of the Web-Series and as would be expected by any viewer of the Web-Series, the Protagonist performs a stand-up comic act, wherein he makes reference to 'lawyers in Mumbai' (Time stamp 05:05 to 04:15). 9. It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the defendants that Lawyers cannot be defamed as a "class of persons", nor can the Plaintiff be defamed by a general reference to Lawyers. It is contended that a class of persons cannot be defamed as a class, nor can an individual be defamed by general reference to a class to which the individual belongs. 10. It is, further, without prejudice contended that the settled position of law is that howsoever reprehensible or morally unjustifiable the words complained of may be, for the words to be actionable, they must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established i.e. in case of a defamatory imputation against a collection of persons, such collection of persons must be a definite and determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. 11. It is contended that where there is a statement describing a very wide class of individuals such as the reference made to lawyers, without identifying individual members, it cannot be said that lawyers have been defamed as a class or that individual members such as the Plaintiff have been defamed for belonging to the class of lawyer. Given the vast diversity in the class, the words used to describe a class would not reasonably lead persons acquainted with the Plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to. 12. It is further contended that the Plaintiff has failed to disclose any cause of action to file the Suit or that he has suffered any irreparable loss or injury. 13. Reference may be had to the legal position, with regard to filing an action against making of defamatory or derogatory remarks about a class of individuals. 14. The Patna High Court in Asha Parekh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1977 Cri L J 21 has held as under: "13. It is well known that the essence of the offence of defamation consists in calling that description of pain which is felt by a person who knows himself to be the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow creatures and those inconveniences to Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/170570619/ 3