Category: CIVIL

ELMER GERTZ v. ROBERT WELCH, INC.

The principal issue in this case is whether a newspaper or broadcaster that publishes defamatory falsehoods about an individual who is neither a public official nor a public figure may claim a constitutional provilege against liability for the injury inflicted by those statements [United States Supreme Court]

Advertisements

Random House Australia Pty Ltd v Abbott [1999] FCA 1538

DEFAMATION – meaning of publication – natural and ordinary – false innuendo – whether particulars of meaning required to be pleaded as imputations or false innuendos – whether publication conveyed imputations as pleaded – whether imputation of lacking personal integrity defamatory – whether imputation of shallow political commitment defamatory – whether imputation of being of weak and unreliable character defamatory – whether trial judge erred in reading “sexually promiscuous” as meaning “guilty of unchastity” – whether publication bore an imputation of unchastity – whether imputation of sexual promiscuity defamatory – whether imputation of unchastity defamatory – whether imputation of low moral standards defamatory – whether imputation of being a political manipulator was defamatory.

Filing a written statement is not only way to defend a suit, but a defendant may successfully defend a suit by cross-examination and arguments.

MODULA INDIA Vs. KAMAKSHYA SINGH DEO –  In case of failure of filing written statement, the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case -SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [1988]

It should be borne in mind that the right to begin is not same as adducing of evidence in support of a party’s case.

BALAKRISHNA KAR AND ANOTHER Vs. H.K. MAHATAB- It should therefore be borne in mind that the right to begin is not the same as the adducing of evidence in support of a party’s case. There is a distinction between the two. It is open to the plaintiff to say that although he has the right to begin he may rest content with relying upon the averments made in the written statement and may say that he does not propose to adduce further evidence, but the plaintiff should make this statement before the defendant is called upon to adduce evidence – ORISSA HIGH COURT- 1954

In absence of right to sue, the court must shoot down bogus litigation at the first hearing-SC

T. ARIVANDANDAM Vs. T.V. SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER – Rejection of Plaint – Under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it is the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is an answer to irresponsible lawsuits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them – SC [14-10-1977]