Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Pushp Sharma vs Db Corp Ltd. And Ors. on 28 September, 2018
34. The Court notes that while dealing with the issue of a pre-
publication injunction, a Division Bench of the Court in Pushp
Sharma vs. D.B. Corp. Ltd. And Ors.7 had while reiterating the
principles laid down in Khushwant Singh made the following
pertinent observations:
Kartar Singh & Others vs The State Of Punjab on 26 April, 1956
Also, the judgment in Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1956 SCR 476 underlines that ―those who fill public
positions must not be too thin-skinned in respect of references made
upon them‖. This court is also of the opinion that the mere frame of
the relief - of permanent injunction does not alter the principle. The
cause of action which the plaintiffs base their suit upon, is alleged
defamation. Therefore, the ordinary principles of injunctive relief, at
the ex parte stage, having regard to the nature of the subject matter,
i.e. restraint of speech, would be the same. Another interpretation
would mean that the plaintiff can at will change the governing
principles, by the mere device of claiming a different relief and
arguing that if refused, the suit would be defeated. It is not
uncommon that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is
unable to secure temporary injunction. That per se would not
disentitle the plaintiff, if otherwise entitled, to any relief. Much
depends on what is actually proved.