Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.01 seconds)
Mohammad Samiullah Khan vs Bishu Nath on 4 July, 1927 cites

Chunni Lal vs Narsingh Das on 15 December, 1917

29. The above is an authoritative pronouncement by two eminent Judges of this Court and the value of the same has in no way been affected by the decision of Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das [1918] 40 All. 341. This very matter came up before a Full Bench of this Court consisting of Walsh, Ag. C.J., Ryves and Dalal, JJ., in the Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Walsh, J., whose judgment was affirmed. It affirmed by implication the pronouncement of Walsh, J., that a report made at a police-station, though not within the rule of absolute privilege which covers judicial proceedings, is prima facie privileged, that is to say, the person making it has a right to make it if he honestly believes it, and the person receiving it has a duty to receive it; but qualified privilege, as the term indicates, provides only a qualified protection, and the person charged with the defamation must prove that he used the privilege honestly, honestly believing the truth of what he said, or, in other words having reasonable grounds for making the statement, and the onus of establishing that lies upon him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Pedda Sanjivi Reddy And Anr. vs Kondasari Koneri Reddi on 6 October, 1925

The learned Counsel for the respondent has referred me to day to a case reported in Sanjivi Reddi v. Koneri Reddi A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 521. This case is not in accord with the decision of this Court just referred to. It may be held as settled law (1) that the report made to a police officer is not a judicial proceeding; (2) that imputations contained in the said report may be privileged if there was an occasion of privilege, but they are not absolutely privileged; (3) that if the defendant pleads privilege the onus lies upon him to prove the affirmative; (4) that if he succeeds in proving privilege the onus of proving actual malice is then cast upon the plaintiff, for malice destroys privilege. But if the defendant has failed to prove that he made the statement on a privileged occasion honestly the plaintiff is not called upon to prove actual malice; and (5) that privilege, which affords a ground of defence can only arise either from the nature of the publication or from the relation between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1