Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi on 18 September, 2001

M/S. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd vs Swami Ramdev on 28 April, 2018

because (c) while giving such finding, the Ld. Trial Court has not noted that as per the law laid down in Khushwant Singh v Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Del 58, Indu Jain v Forbes Incorporated, (2007) ILR 8 Delhi 9, Tata Sons v Greenpeace International and Anr., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466, Dr. Shashi Tharur   v   Arnab   Goswami   and   Anr.,   2017   SCC   OnLine   Del   12049,   the usual course, in suits like the present suit, is to protect the right of freedom and speech guaranteed to an individual/journalist/author, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, unless the defense of truth,   fair   comment   and   fair   reporting,   pleaded   by   the individual/journalist/author, appears to be completely meritless. 1
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priyanka Pathak Narain vs Swami Ramdev on 28 April, 2018

perverse/infirm and warrants this Court to set aside the impugned Order, because (a) while giving such finding, the Ld. Trial Court has gone beyond the pleadings of the plaint of the subject suit, because (b) while giving such finding in impugned Order, the Ld. Trial Court has not noted that the book of the appellant  was  already available in the  market for reading  by the public,   on   account  of   the   publication   and  sale   done  by   the   respondent no.2, before passing of the ex­parte ad­interim injunction Order, by the Ld. Trial Court, on 04.08.2017 and as a consequence thereof, as aforesaid, the balance of convenience qua the prohibition/ban on the publication and sale of the book of the appellant, actually exists in favor the appellant and because (c) while giving such finding, the Ld. Trial Court has not noted that as per the law laid down in Khushwant Singh v Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Del 58, Indu Jain v Forbes Incorporated, (2007) ILR 8 Delhi 9, Tata Sons v Greenpeace International and Anr., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466, Dr. Shashi Tharur   v   Arnab   Goswami   and   Anr.,   2017   SCC   OnLine   Del   12049,   the usual course, in suits like the present suit, is to protect the right of freedom and speech guaranteed to an individual/journalist/author, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, unless the defense of truth,   fair   comment   and   fair   reporting,   pleaded   by   the individual/journalist/author, appears to be completely meritless. 1
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swami Ramdev vs Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd & Ors on 29 September, 2018

145. Thus as laid down thereby, whatever may be of the interest to the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach of privacy and an individual thus has a right to protection to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only against false truth but also certain truths. It is thus in this context that the verdicts in Sardar Charanjeet Singh v. Arun Purie & Ors. 1983 (4) DRJ 86, Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2001) SCC Online Del 1030, Indu Jain v. Forbes Inc. 2007 SCC Online Del 1424 coupled with the factum that the submissions of the respondents themselves in relation to the aspect of there being no meaningful difference now between public officials and public figures in view of the verdict of the Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor & Ors 1995 32(DRJ) 142 have to be read wherein the right to reputation and privacy has been extended to an individual against making a film against the appellant herein shaming her being raped and paraded nude.
Delhi High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 8 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Tata Sons Limited vs Greenpeace International & Anr on 28 January, 2011

It was urged in addition, that the rule of caution enunciated in Bonnard (supra) has been approved and followed, by a Division Bench of this Court, in Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Del 58. Learned counsel urged that this Court should also be mindful of the fact that the present suit, is an instance of a SLAPP SUIT, the sole objective of which is the plaintiff‟s desire to muffle or stifle criticisms about the ecological damage threatened by the Dhamra Port Project. It was argued that though the Port is a joint venture, the real beneficiary after it comes up, is the Tata group, as it (the port) affords a proximate sailing point from which their products, such as steel, etc. can be shipped.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 32 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Naveen Jindal vs M/S Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Anr on 5 March, 2015

32. I may refer to two of the judgments filed by the defendant No.1 alongwith its paper book. First case is a judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Khushwant Singh and Anr. vs. Maneka CS(OS) 143/2015 Page 25 of 42 Gandhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 58. In that case the High Court was dealing with a petition where a public figure claimed protection against publication under her right of privacy. The Division Bench noted that publication of the excerpts of the proposed publication had occurred much prior to the filing of the suit. In those facts the Division Bench held that private life of public figure does become matter of public interest. It was in those facts that the Division Bench held that there was no question of any irreparable loss and injury since the respondent had herself claimed damages which would be a remedy in case she is able to establish defamation.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 12 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 Next