Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Section 129 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 126 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P.R. Ramakrishnan vs Subbaramma Sastrigal And Anr. on 18 November, 1986
6. On the face of the points urged for consideration, there is no need at all to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint are per se defamatory or not. There could not have been any pale of controversy that the so-called scurrilous allegations or imputations contained in the notice exchanged between the parties can, by no stretch of imagination be construed to be 'publication' in the eye of law. Such a question arose for consideration by the Kerala High Court in the case of P. R. Ramakrishnan v. Subbaramma Sastrigal, . His Lordship K. T. Thomas, J. answered such a question by expressing thus in paragraphs 8, 9, 11 and 12; -
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sukhdeo Vithal Pansare vs Prabhakar Sukhdeo Pansare And Anr. on 7 March, 1974
A single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Sukhdeo Vithal v. Prabhakar Sukhdeo, 1974 Crl LJ 1435, accepted the contention that the advocate dictating to his clerk or typist any matter which the typist or clerk transcribes in the discharge of his duties does not make publication of that matter. These decisions lend support to the view that the dictation given by the lawyer to his clerk and transcription made by him of a per se libellous matter cannot amount to publication.
Hormusji K. Bhabha vs Nana Appa on 30 January, 1934
So the relationship between the lawyer and client is far more salubrious than the ordinary principal and agent relationship. Yet the idea of agency inheres in it. So the mere fact that the advocate is a different person does not make the receipt of the reply as amounting to publication. As early as in 1934 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court observed that a pleader is a special kind of agent. Hormusji K. Bhabha v. Nana Appa, AIR 1934 Bom 299. "He is a special kind of agent, or an agent selected out of a special class, for whom this kind of agency contract is reserved by law but nevertheless governed by the law relating to agency."
1