Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.79 seconds)
Documents citing Chunni Lal vs Narsingh Das on 15 December, 1917

B. Sumat Prasad Jain, Advocate vs Sheo Dutt Sharma And Anr. on 26 March, 1945

It is unfortunate that the learned Judges had not before them the decision of the Pull Bench of their own Court which had applied the common law of England to a case of a civil suit for slander, but accepting their view that the English law ought to be applied with caution in India, there is little in the concluding part of the foregoing passage which would exclude the propriety of examining the judicial principles which lie at the root of the absolute privilege accorded in England to counsel. The learned Judges, however, appear actually to have founded their decision on the opinion that the lawyer's interjection went beyond anything he could properly have made in the performance of his professional duties as his client's representative. They thought that it was "uncalled for" and "inopportune", and that it was not addressed to the Court, but rather to the world at large present in the court-room. It is possible that the decision might still be reconciled with the law as laid down in the Full Bench on that ground, but it is not altogether easy to see why, however irrelevant and improper the mukhtar's observation was, it was not made in the course of the administration of the proceedings in which he was engaged. I cannot help, with great deference, doubting whether a burden can be placed on counsel of discriminating between what is strictly "necessary or called for in the prosecution of the case...then under inquiry."
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Miss Kamalini Manmade vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 November, 1965

702, the entire ease law has been discussed and following the Full Bench decision reported in Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das, it has been held that on grounds of public, policy, an advocate, acting professionally in a cause, is absolutely protected from a suit for defamation for words spoken or written in his professional capacity in the course of the administration of the law in respect of that cause, even though the words are uttered without justification and maliciously and are irrelevant to any issue then before the Court. On the point as to -what is the effect of the Indian Penal Code on the immunity claimed under the English common law, it has been observed as follows in that case (p. 720) :
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Ali Mohammad vs Manna Lal on 10 April, 1929

535 which was merely a police report, I consider, therefore, that I am bound to follow the principle of the Full Bench in Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das [1918] 40 All. 341 and hold that the present action was one of absolute privilege. One further argument was made on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the Court was not endowed with jurisdiction at the time to decide the suit. That suit had been referred to arbitration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ali Mohamed vs Zakir Ali on 30 March, 1931

6. In this case the question was also argued in second appeal as to whether the plaintiff would be entitled to damages for defamation on account of the defamatory statements contained in the complaint made by the defendant to the Magistrate. But the Pull Bench ruling of Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das has definitely held that the criminal complaint is absolutely privileged so far as the civil Court is concerned. I allow this appeal and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs in all Courts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mohammad Samiullah Khan vs Bishu Nath on 4 July, 1927

29. The above is an authoritative pronouncement by two eminent Judges of this Court and the value of the same has in no way been affected by the decision of Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das [1918] 40 All. 341. This very matter came up before a Full Bench of this Court consisting of Walsh, Ag. C.J., Ryves and Dalal, JJ., in the Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Walsh, J., whose judgment was affirmed. It affirmed by implication the pronouncement of Walsh, J., that a report made at a police-station, though not within the rule of absolute privilege which covers judicial proceedings, is prima facie privileged, that is to say, the person making it has a right to make it if he honestly believes it, and the person receiving it has a duty to receive it; but qualified privilege, as the term indicates, provides only a qualified protection, and the person charged with the defamation must prove that he used the privilege honestly, honestly believing the truth of what he said, or, in other words having reasonable grounds for making the statement, and the onus of establishing that lies upon him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sh. M. L. Gohri vs Sh. A. K. Aggarwal on 6 July, 2011

19 The question whether the doctrine of absolute privilege should be applied to statements made in judicial proceedings in India was answered in a Full Bench of five judges of Allahabad High Court in Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das 16 All. L.J. 360 : (AIR 1918 All. 69 F.B.). It was held that there was nothing in the circumstances and society of this country that would make it improper or inadvisable to apply to India the English rule of privilege, which is well established in England. The case before the Bench arose out of a petition presented to a criminal court by a party.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Jasbir Singh vs Smt. Ravinder Kaur @ Renu on 12 December, 2013

It was held that Absolute Privilege attached to the said statement on the principle that there is an absolute privilege for parties, witnesses, counsel, jury or Judges in regard to words spoken in office, and this privilege extends to the statements in the affidavits made by parties or witnesses. This case followed its own Full Bench decision in the case Chunni Lal V. Narsingh Das, AIR 1918 All CS No. 251/2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ravinder Kaur 11/21 12 69 (FB) which expressly laid down that defamatory statements made in the course of judicial proceedings were not actionable on the ground of absolute privilege.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next