Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (1.44 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

Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa vs . on 27 August, 2012

Therefore, the stage of the case is different from the stage of the case discussed in Khushwant Singh's case. Moreover, I have discussed about the difference between the biography and autobiography in the earlier paragraphs. Certainly autobiography is different from biography. In the case dealt with by Delhi High Court, namely, Khushwant Singhs case, the autobiography written by Khushwant Singh in respect of his relation with other persons and one among them was Maneka Gandhi, who sought the relief of injunction restraining the author from invading her right to privacy. In an autobiography reasonable verification would be always available, since it was experienced by the author himself in his autobiography. But in the case of a biography, it is not so. The subject of the biography has to be dictate or explain all the incidents regarding the life of that subject so as to give authentication for those writings. Admittedly, the third defendant did not get any authentication or consent from the plaintiff. It is not the case of the third defendant that the plaintiff has asked her to write biography of the plaintiff, but the third defendant herself has started writing about the life of the plaintiff without any consent of the plaintiff. But the book was only revolving around the plaintiff from her childhood to the present position. Therefore, whatever name it is called, it would only be a biography and not else. So far as a biography is concerned, it must be dictated by the person, who is the subject of the biography and the author should write it to the consent and the verification from the said subject. It is totally absent in this case. The private life of the plaintiff was centred around even prior to her entering politics and those contents were not verified nor any reasonable verification was done by the third defendant. In the said circumstances, the contents of the book was openly denied by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, containing false and incorrect particulars.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T,Bedi vs Mr. Kabir Bedi on 2 February, 2024

35. The counsel also relied upon the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in TATA SONS LIMITED VS. GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL & ANR. reported in (2011) 178 DLT 705 and contend that matter requires adjudication and brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.29, 30, 31 and 33, wherein also the Delhi High Court discussed the judgment of the KHUSHWANT SINGH's case and so also brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.35 and 36, wherein at Para No.36, it is observed that the matter has to be considered on merits and not at the interlocutory stage and it would be apparent from the above discussion that publication is a comprehensive term, embracing all forms and mediums - including the Internet.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

T. V. Today Network Limited vs News Laundry Media Private Limited & ... on 29 July, 2022

90. The ―balance of convenience‖ would, therefore, tilt in favour of the defendants No.1 to 9 as, in the event they are able to establish justification and fair comment and fair dealing, the plaintiff would fail, both in respect of their claim against copyright infringement/broadcast right violation as also defamation/disparagement. If there is no justification, there could probably be no fair comment either and thus no defence against defamation either. Moreover, no injunction in futuro can be issued, as has been held in Khushwant Singh (supra) and R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632. Admittedly, some of the videos and articles and posts in question, have been in existence since 2018 and hence, no real urgency has been shown even for the removal of even those words noted hereinbefore, by issuing mandatory injunctions to take them down. It must be kept in mind that a mandatory injunction is issued at the interim stage only in rare and extraordinary situations.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

Sushil Ansal vs Endemol India Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 12 January, 2023

12. It was contended on behalf of defendant No. 3, that the grant of CS(OS) 20/2023 Page 9 of 39 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.01.2023 15:48:14 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000205 a pre-publication injunction is to be considered only in exceptional situations and must meet an extremely high threshold. Reliance in this respect was placed on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushwant Singh and Another vs. Maneka Gandhi3. The relevant passages of the said decision are extracted hereinbelow: -
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next