cites: 619887

Channing Arnold vs The Emperor on 7 April, 1914

In the case of Channing Arnold (supra), and S.M. Narayanan (supra), it was found that the libel statement of accused was not correct and therefore it was found to be defamatory but in the present case whatever has been published in Ex. P-1 is found to be correct by two Courts-below on the basis of evidence.

Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Habib Bhai vs Pyarelal And Ors. on 26 September, 1963

In the case of S.M. Narayanan (supra), the statement which was made was found to be not correct and therefore it was held that the statement was defamatory and on the same ground the case of Habib Bhai (supra) and Ramakant (supra) are distinguishable.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Chaman Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 6 March, 1970

In the present case since it has been proved that whatever has been published in P-1 is true, the case of Chaman Lal (supra) is not helpful for plaintiff.

Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - A N Ray - Full Document

Sukra Mahto vs Basdeo Kumar Mahto &. Anr on 2 April, 1971

On the similar ground the case of Sukra Mahto (supra) is distinguishable.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 32 - A N Ray - Full Document

Rajindra Kishore Sahi vs Durga Sahi on 13 May, 1966

9. Combating the submissions of learned counsel for appellant, it has been argued by Shri Mohd. All, learned counsel for respondents that the averments made in the impugned pamphlet (Ex. P-1) are correct and bonafidely they were printed and there is no intention of respondents in order to put any dent on the reputation and status of plaintiff. According to learned counsel the impugned pamphlet was never circulated. Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on Rajindra Kishore Sahi v. Durga Sahi, AIR 1967 All 476.

Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

S.M. Narayanan And Anr. vs S.R. Narayana Iyer on 27 October, 1960

In the case of S.M. Narayanan (supra), the statement which was made was found to be not correct and therefore it was held that the statement was defamatory and on the same ground the case of Habib Bhai (supra) and Ramakant (supra) are distinguishable.

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search