Trace Your Case

Categories
DEFAMATION

Huth v. Huth [1915] 3 KB 32

ISSUE:

Was there publication of the letter so as to be able to constitute as defamation?

RULE:

In order for a statement to constitute as defamation, one of its prerequisites is that the letter must be published in some form or the other.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

Indian Express Newspapers v. Jagmohan Mundhara and Anr. AIR 1985 Bom 229

ISSUE:

Can the injunction be granted so as to stop publication of the film?

RULE:

In order to be defamatory of the plaintiff the article complained of had to contain something which, to the mind of a reader with the knowledge of the relevant circumstances, contained defamatory imputations and pointed to the plaintiff as the person defamed.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

ISSUE:

Does a public official have to prove “actual malice” before he can recover damages in a defamation action against persons criticizing their official conduct because the 1st Amendment of the US protects false statements against public officials.

RULE:

A State cannot, under the First Amendment (freedom of speech) award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632

ISSUE:

Freedom of expression vs the right to privacy in matters related to public officials.

RULE:

Once something becomes a part of public record, it cannot be protected under right to privacy and thus can be publishes even without consent. However, if someone publishes something without the consent of a person, whether true or not, will be violating privacy if the matter is not of public record.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333

ISSUE:

Did the advertisement constitute defamation?

RULE:

Knowledge of the innuendo by the defendant is immaterial and the defendant is nevertheless liable for a statement he believes to be innocent, but is in fact defamatory by reason of facts unknown to him, but known to the persons to whom he makes it.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

Abdul Wahab Galadari v. Indian Express Newspaper AIR 1994 Bom 69

ISSUE:

Whether the publication of the articles was in public interest?

Whether due care and caution had been taken before the publication of the article?

Whether there is merit in the plea of defendant's justification.

RULE:

Statements are not defamatory in nature if they are made in the interest of the public and the person publishing it must have reasonable believed it to be in the interest of the public.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
DEFAMATION

Govind Shantaram Walavalkar v. Pandharinath Shivaram Rege AIR 1985 Bom 224

ISSUE:

Can the defendant's actions be protected under the Doctrine of Absolute Privilege?

RULE:

Absolute Privilege allows people to speak freely and make statements without any fear of being sued. Even if the statements made are untrue or defamatory, the privilege is provided so that people are encourage to speak if in case what they say turns out to be true.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now