Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: defamation case in San Nutrition Private Limited vs Arpit Mangal And Others on 28 April, 2025Matching Fragments
However, in its reply dated 29th March, 2024, Google refused to remove the impugned videos from its platform stating that it is not in a position to adjudicate the veracity of the posts and it does not remove videos based on allegations of defamation.
CASE SET UP BY THE DEFENDANT NO.1
16. The case set up by the defendant no.1 in the written statement is as follows:
THE LEGAL REGIME IN INDIA WITH REGARD TO DEFAMATION AND DISPARAGEMENT
34. Both the amici curiae appointed by this Court have placed before this Court well-researched notes along with judgments with regard to the position in law in relation to cases of defamation and disparagement.
A. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF MR. ADITYA GUPTA
A.2 Disparagement
48. An action for disparagement falls within the tort of malicious falsehood and it seeks to protect the economic interest of the plaintiff, as opposed to its reputation in the case of defamation. Disparagement would involve making statements about the plaintiff's goods or services which are untrue or misleading and are made to influence the public in a manner not to buy the said goods or avail the said services.
[emphasis supplied] A.3 Interim Injunction in cases of Defamation and Disparagement
53. The courts in India have consistently followed the Bonnard principle as laid down in the judgment of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) in Bonnard v. Perryman14, wherein it was held that an interim injunction should not be granted unless the defence set up by the defendant was bound to fail in trial. It was held that the courts must exercise exceptional caution while granting injunction before trial in defamation cases as it impinges upon the right to free speech of an individual. In the aforesaid case, the Court agreed that the character of publication was libellous, however, it was observed that the defence of justification raised by the defendant can only be tested in a trial. Hence, the interim injunction was refused. The relevant extracts of the said judgment are set out below: