Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Thangavelu Chettiar vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965

G.Boopathi vs Lenin Balu on 24 March, 2022

9.The survey of the judgments referred above show that, it is held in AIR 1926 Madras 906 Tiruvengada Mudali Vs. Tripursundari Ammal, that, if a Magistrate, prima-facie, came to the conclusion that the allegations might come within the definition of defamation under Sections 499 I.P.C, the case could be taken cognizance of. It is observed in AIR 1966 Mad 363 Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal, that, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

G.Boopathi vs Lenin Balu on 24 March, 2022

9.The survey of the judgments referred above show that, it is held in AIR 1926 Madras 906 Tiruvengada Mudali Vs. Tripursundari Ammal, that, if a Magistrate, prima-facie, came to the conclusion that the allegations might come within the definition of defamation under Sections 499 I.P.C, the case could be taken cognizance of. It is observed in AIR 1966 Mad 363 Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal, that, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - G Chandrasekharan - Full Document

Chander Pal Singh vs Meenakshi Chauhan on 4 January, 2025

THANGAVELU CHETTIAR V. PONNAMMAL AIR 1966 MAD 363 "4. The main ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that there was no publication as the copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1 was sent only to P. W. 1, Ponnammal. I am unable to accept this contention. It was not argued in either of the courts below or mentioned in the grounds of revision that there was no publication in this case. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 14 of the appellate courts judgment in support of his contention that the plea had been taken, but a reading of that paragraph would show that the plea taken was that the allegation would not amount to defamation. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the complaint filed in this case that the defamation complained of in this case was with regard to the allegation in the plaint in S. C. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, and in the same paragraph the complainant has referred to her having received a copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1. The filing of the plaint in the court has been spoken to by P. W. 3, Sri. CS DJ No.484/2023 page 14 of 43 P. R. Subramaniam, who filed the plaint on behalf of the petitioner. Thus there can be no doubt that the defamation contained in the plaint was published by the plaint being filed in the court. Further even assuming that the complainant referred to the allegation in Ex. P. 1, still there is publication. It is clear from a scrutiny of the copy of the plaint Ex. P. 1, that it was prepared by P. W. 3, and filed into court, and it bears the seal of the District Munsifs Court, Tirukoilur. The copy of the plaint should be compared with the original by the court before it is served on the defendant by registered post.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani And ... vs Kripa Shankar Bhargava on 24 January, 1990

In Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal, AIR 1966 Mad. 363, it has been ruled that filing a plaint or petition containing defamatory matter amounts to publication. Therefore, per se defamatory statement in pleadings, petitions, affidavits etc. of parties to judicial proceedings are offence punishable Under Section 500, Indian Penal Code unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499, Indian Penal Code and therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to take resort to exceptions of Section 499, India Penal Code at an appropriate stage.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Trichinopoly Ramaswamy Ardhanani And ... vs Kripa Shanker Bhargava on 24 January, 1990

21. The next point argued by Shri Dutt is that so called per se defamatory words said to have been used in the plaint were not made public to be known to persons in general and, therefore, no case under Section 500, I.P.C. is made out. This argument is only tenable where the letter enclosed in an envelope and is sent to the complainant and in that context it will not be deemed to be publication. But where the plaint is filed containing so called defamatory matter according to the respondent, the same amounts to publication within-the meaning of Section 499, I.P.C. In Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal, AIR 1966 Madras 363 : (1966 Cri LJ 1149) it has been ruled that filing a plaint or petition containing defamatory matter amounts to publication. Therefore, per se defamatory statement in pleadings, petition, affidavits etc. of parties to judicial proceedings are offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. unless they fall within the exceptions enumerated in Section 499, I.P.C. and therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to take resort to exceptions of Section 499, I.P.C. at an appropriate stage.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr. J. Sudarshan vs R. Sankaran on 16 August, 1991

12. A learned Judge of this court in Thangavelu v. Ponnammal , confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence u/S. 500, IPC relating to a defamatory statement made in his plaint in Small Cause No. 349/93 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, wherein the plaintiff had described one Ponnammal, as concubine of Namasivaya Udayar. Ponnammal had filed the criminal complaint for defamation. The trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, had held that there was absence of good faith and since the findings were concurrent, this Court in the revision, declined to interfere with the conviction.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Alli Rani Joseph Mathew vs P.Arun Kumar on 3 August, 2012

8. Nextly, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no bar at all for an aggrieved to file a private complaint alleging that he had been defamed warranting punishment under Section 500 of IPC for the accused, if defamatory statement has been made in the pleading in a civil suit. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the pendency of the civil suit has got nothing to do with the criminal case. In other words, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, there is no bar for filing a prosecution for defamation on the basis of the averments found in a pleading filed before the civil court. For this proposition, the learned Counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in Thangavelu Chettiar v. Ponnammal reported in AIR 1966 Madras 363 wherein a learned Judge of this Court has held in para 5 of the said judgment as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sh. Anil Kumar vs ) Ms. Sangeeta Grover on 30 May, 2015

9. I have heard the appellant/plaintiff, Sh. Vipin Sandhuja, Ld. Counsel for respondents no­1 and 2 and Sh. Arun Bali, Ld. Proxy Counsel for respondent no­3 and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, relied precedents, written arguments on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and have also examined the record of the case. The appellant/plaintiff argued in terms of grounds set up in appeal elicited above and has placed reliance upon the cases - (i) Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 182 (2011) DLT 221; (ii) Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal, AIR 1966 Mad 363: 1966 Cr LJ 1149; and (iii) Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0107/1970, and has prayed for setting aside of the impugned decree and the judgment, allowing the appeal and passing decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff and against all the respondents/ defendants for the sum claimed in the suit. RCA­21/2014
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next