IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K.
Kelachandra Joseph George, S/O Sri. Kelachandra Chacko Joseph – Appellant
Versus
N.R Ramesh, S/O Sri. Narayan Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH RAI K, J.
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed on I.A.No.I filed by the defendant i.e., the respondent herein under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.6055/2021 before the IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.I and consequently, rejected the plaint for want of cause of action and as barred by limitation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court.
3. The abridged facts of the case are as under:
The plaintiff filed a suit for an unconditional apology from the defendant through media and for damages of Rs.1 Crore for publishing defamatory imputation.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is a Member of the Indian National Congress Party as also a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly (MLA) representing Sarvagna Nagara, 160 Assembly Constituency. He was also a Minister for Large and Medium Scale Industry, IT and BT, Science and Technology and also Minister of Home Affairs, Government of Karnataka and
A suit for defamation must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and failure to establish a cause of action can lead to dismissal.
Once an issue is framed and treated as a preliminary issue, it cannot be recalled or set aside without any justification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of a partnership concern under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, renders the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, inappli....
Defamation suit for libel time-barred beyond one year from publication; receipt of exoneration reports does not extend limitation. Plaint rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) if averments disclose l....
Reporting factually correct information on an ongoing investigation is not defamatory, and complaints filed beyond the limitation period are not maintainable.
The right to free speech does not exempt individuals from civil liability for defamatory statements, especially when additional remarks beyond a complaint are made public.
The court established that for a defamation claim under IPC Sections 499 and 500, the publication must lower the reputation of the complainant, and the truth of the statements must be proven in their....
The court determined that in cases of electronic defamation, jurisdiction lies where the wrongful communication is felt, affirming that plaintiffs have a choice to sue where the offense occurred or w....
A plaint must disclose a cause of action to proceed in court, and mere claims of vagueness do not suffice for rejection, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of the allegations at trial.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.