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]

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.

If a statement expressly referring to a dead person and affects his reputation, legal heirs can maintain Defamation suit.

The right to dignity and fair treatment with the citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is well recognised. Such a right is available both for living as well as dead persons. Any false imputation amounts to defamation whether the concerned person is alive or dead. To defame a dead person is not a tort, but if such statement though expressly referring to the deceased reflects upon the dead person and affects his reputation, the legal representatives can maintain the action.

In a suit for defamation no Court Fees shall be payable in suit for damages for defamation u/s 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1974

"When there is inherent lack of jurisdiction going by the averment of the plaint, question of waiver and/or estoppel does not arise as averments made in the plaint do and can not confer any jurisdiction. So this application for demurrer…

M. VEERAPPA Vs. EVELYN SEQUEIRA AND OTHERS

Suit for damages against counsel due to loss and injuries suffered on account of negligence in conducting professional duty - Held no exemption can be claimed by a legal practitioner - Legal practitioner may settle with the person and the fee to be paid for his professional services but he cannot claim any exemption from the liability to be sued for loss incurred by his client due to his negligence- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - [13-01-1988]

Death of plaintiff shall not abate suit if decreed in a defamation suit, legal heirs shall be substituted- SC

MELEPURATH SANKUNNI EZHUTHASSAN  Vs. THEKITTIL GEOPALANKUTTY NAIR  - The position, however, is different where a suit for defamation has resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff because in such a case the cause of action has merged in the decree and the decretal debt forms part of his estate and the appeal from the decree by the defendant becomes a question of benefit or detriment to the estate of the plaintiff-respondent which his legal representatives is entitled to uphold and defend and is, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent-plaintiff. [ Supreme Court- 29-11-1985]