Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.80 seconds)
Madhab Chandra Ghose And Ors. vs Nirod Chandra Ghose on 20 February, 1939 cites

C.H. Crowdy vs L. O'Reilly on 2 September, 1912

The reasoning of Beaohcroft J. in Crowdy v. O'Reilly (1913) 17 C.W.N. 554 that the pleadings in this country are often full of grossly exaggerated and untrue statements does not appeal to me. In the Privy Council case stated above, the defendants or at, least two of them were prosecutors and it was held expressly by the Judicial Committee that a suit for malicious prosecution would lie against them. But nevertheless, the suit for libel was dismissed on the ground that their statements as defendants and parties in the witness-box were absolutely privileged. I do not think therefore that I can accept the argument of the learned advocate for the respondent that the statements as contained in the police report were not privileged simply because they were made by parties and not by witnesses.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Golap Jan vs Bhola Nath Khetry on 18 July, 1910

12. Another argument can indeed be advanced as to the statement contained in the reports on the ground that these statements were not made in the course of any judicial proceeding but were made only before a police officer. A complaint made before a Magistrate is undoubtedly privileged: vide the case in Gopal Jan v. Bhola Nath (1911) 38 Cal. 880 The complainant can be prosecuted for lodging a false complaint but cannot be made liable as a defendant in a libel suit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Satis Chandra Ckakrabarti vs Ram Dayal De on 13 July, 1920

This view which has been justly characterized as the minority view by Satis Chandra Chakraburty v. Ram Dayal De (1921) 8 A.I.R. Cal. 1 is not shared by the majority of decisions in India. The reasoning upon which it is based is, that there being no codified law relating to torts in British India, it is not always proper or safe to import in its entirety the rules of English law on the subject as principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The Court may very well look to the provisions of Section 499, I.P.C. as the rule to be followed even in a civil action for libel. No doubt something can be said in support of this view and it is to some extent anomalous if certain statements are held to be privileged in Civil Courts, though no such defence can be raised in criminal proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Augada Ram Shaha And Anr. vs Nemai Chand Shaha on 29 June, 1896

11. No action for defamation therefore lies in respect of the statements made by the defendants as witnesses in the criminal case even though the statements were false and malicious. The question now arises as to whether this immunity can be claimed in respect of the statements contained in the reports Exs. 1 and 2 which were sent to the police by defendants 3 and 5. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the respondent that these statements are not privileged as they were untrue statements made by parties quite voluntarily and not by witnesses who have often no choice in the matter and are compelled to answer questions put to them. Reliance was placed upon certain decisions of this Court in Augada Ram Shaha v. Nemai Chand Saha (1896) 23 Cal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next