Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 51A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.G. Lakhmidas And Co. vs Sir Dorab Tata on 6 October, 1926
So far as these individuals were concerned, they did not take any notice of these vulgar abuses and appeared to have considered the whole thing as beneath their notice. Their conduct in this behalf was consistent with the best traditions of democracy. "Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time". (Per Cockburn C.J. in 'Seymour v. Butterworth' (1862) 3 F&F 372(376, 377(a) and see the dicta of the Judges in R. v. Sir Carden (1879) 5QBD).
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Jagmohan Mundhara And Anr. on 12 October, 1984
71. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Raj Panjwani that if the statements relate to private lives of persons, nothing more is to be said and the material must be injuncted from being published unless it is with the consent of the person whom the subject matter relates to. Such pre-censorship cannot be countenanced in the Scheme of our constitutional framework. There is also some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prior publication having occurred much prior to the suit being filed, the principle denying the relief for interlocutory injunction where the plaintiff has been dilatory in making the application, as observed in the Indian Express Newspaper's case (supra) would also apply to the present case.
Charanjit Singh vs Arun Purie And Ors. on 5 November, 1982
31. Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant also referred to a Single Bench judgment of this court in Sardar Charanjit Singh vs. Arun Purie & others to contend that once appellant no. 1 stood by his statements, there could not be any interlocutory relief granted against publication as held in the said judgment. The observation in the said judgment were made in respect of the proposition that the court would not restrain defamatory when the defendants said that they are intending to plead justification or fair comments. The learned Single Judge of this court referred to the commentary of Gatley on Libel and Slander, 8th Edition para 884 page 387 as under:-
S.M.D. Kiran Pasha vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 9 November, 1989
43. The learned counsel for the respondent then referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in S.M.D. Kiran Pasha vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors. . The said case dealt with an individuals right against alleged harassment at the hands of public authorities. Apprehending certain orders from different authorities, the petitioner therein approached the court and it was held that where a right of a person is threatened to be violated or its violation is imminent and the affected person resorts to Article 226 of the Constitution of India the court can protect observance of his right by restraining those who threaten to violate it. The protection of the right was held to be distinguished from its restoration or remedy after violation. Mr. Panjwani contended that this would be equally true where it was an inter se dispute between two individuals and the ratio decidendi of this case would apply even to the case of respondent to prevent any harm by the action of appellant No. 1 publishing the autobiography.
Unnikrishnan P.J. And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 14 May, 1993
44. The learned counsel for the respondent then referred to the judgment in Unnikrishnan J P & Ors vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors which was a case dealing with the running of private unaided and aided educational institutions. It was contended that the rights envisaged under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India fully protect rights of the respondent against invasion of her privacy and her right to live her life with dignity without being defamed.
Hari Shankar vs Kailash Narayan And Ors. on 2 April, 1981
Thus the controversy in question which is being commented upon did not really remain in the four walls of the house but drew wide publicity and comments even to the extent of poll surveys being carried out in respect of the controversy in question. No grievance was made at that stage of time. It is not a case of prevention of repeated defamatory statements as is sought to be made out be learned counsel for the respondent. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Harishankar's case (supra) and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K V Ramanaiah's case (supra) is thus misplaced. The controversy in question related to the dispute between the respondent and her late mother-in-law, the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The respondent did not make grievance about the reporting of their disputes in the press. The nature of controversy was more or less the same as is now sought to be published by appellant No.1 in his autobiography and thus the respondent cannot make a grievance of the same matter now being published so as to seek prevention of the publication itself. The silence of the respondent and her not making a grievance against the prior publication prima facie amounts to her acquiescence or at least lack of grievance in respect of publication of the material. Needless to add that the remedy of damages against the appellant is still not precluded in so far the respondent is concerned.