Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.17 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Managing Director, Makkal Tholai ... vs Mrs. V. Muthulakshmi on 26 October, 2007
In fact, this Court, in the case of Managing Director, Makkal
Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhumam Limited Vs. Mrs.V.Muthulakshmi,
reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 1152 = 2007 (5) CTC 694, held that the "right of
privacy" of the Late forest brigand Veerappan, did not subsist after his
death, in view of the undertaking that the "right of privacy" of Veerappan's
wife and daughters, would not be affected. Therefore, in that case, it was
held that no case is made out for grant of interim injunction to restrain the
release of the serial "Santhana Kaadu". In that judgment, this Court
categorically rejected the argument regarding inheritability of the "right of
privacy" in para No.18 which reads as follows:-
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017
In this regard, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy and another
Vs. Union of India and another, reported in 2017 (10) SCC 1, wherein, it
has been held as follows:-
R. Rajagopal vs State Of T.N on 7 October, 1994
22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first and second
respondents further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of R.Rajagopal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1995
SC 264, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the petitioners therein
have a right to publish, what they alleged to be the life story or
autobiography of Auto Shankar, insofar as it appears from the public
records, even without the consent or authorisation of the State or its officials
and therefore, the publication of the book cannot be prevented or restrained.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair on 29 November, 1985
6. So far as this country is concerned, which causes
of action survive and which abate is laid down in Section 306
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925...........
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989
(i) S. Rangarajan vs. Jagjivan Ram reported in 1989 (2) SCC 574,
wherein, it was held that it is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of
expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State
cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its
obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
In
this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Wander
Limited and another Vs. Antox India Private Limited, reported in 1990
Page No.32/44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.No.75 of 2020
Supp SCC 727.
R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran ... vs J.Jayalalitha on 6 April, 2006
24. As regards the other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the appellant/plaintiff in the case of The Managing Director, Makkal
Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhuman Limited (mentioned supra), the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that in that
case, it was held by this Court that right to privacy of the late forest brigand
Veerappan did not subsist after his death and therefore, this Court permitted
the release of the series "Santhana Kaadu" subject to the condition that the
Page No.28/44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.No.75 of 2020
film should be based on the public records and field information. This case
also does not support the case of the appellant/plaintiff.