Sarat Chandra Rabha And Others vs Khagendranath Nath And Others on 27 October, 1960
If they could not be regarded as agents of Mr.
Fernandez we do not see any reason to hold that the
'Maratha' or Mr. Atrey can safely be regarded as agent of
Mr. Fernandez when acting for the newspaper so as to prove
his consent to the publication of the defamatory matter. We
are therefore of opinion that consent cannot reasonably be
inferred to the publications in the 'Maratha'. We are
supported in our approach to the problem by a large body of
case law to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Chari. We
may refer to a few cases here : Biswanath Upadhaya v.
Haralal Das and Others(1), Abdul Majeed v. Bhargavan
(Krishnan) & otherS(2), Rustom Satin v. Dr. Sampoornanand
and Others(3), Sarla Devi Pathak v. Birendra Singh &
OtherS(4), Krishna Kumar v. Krishna Gopal(5), Lalsing
Keshrising Rehvar v. Vallabhdas Shankerlal Thekdi and
Others(6), Badri Narain Singh and Others v. Kamdeo Prasad
Singh and Another (7) and Sarat Chandra Rabba v. Khagendranath
Nath and others(8). It is not necessary to
(1) (1959) Assam 97. (2) A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 18.
(3) 20 E.L.R. 221. (4) 20 E.L.R. 275.