Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne
Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi – Appellant
Versus
Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction in defamation suits. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual allegations of defamation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding jurisdiction objections. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. overview of code's jurisdictional provisions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. interpretation of jurisdictional provisions. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. application of section 19 of the code. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. conclusion on jurisdiction ruling. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1) An issue of seminal importance, which the Court is tasked upon to adjudicate, is whether Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would govern defamation suits filed in original civil jurisdiction of this Court and whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would be mandatory for institution of such suits where defamatory material originates outside the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court, but Plaintiff’s reputation is hurt within its territorial jurisdiction.
2) Plaintiff has filed the present Suit alleging defamation by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff describes himself as the Chairman of Maharashtra State Board of Waqf. He claims to have held several prestigious positions on various organizations and
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited VS Advertising Standards Council of India - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2246: Describes the court "affirmed" that the ASCI's order gives rise to a cause of action with part arising in Tamil Nadu, making the suit maintainable. The word "affirmed" directly indicates positive judicial treatment by the court itself or in reference to prior holdings.
Krishna Kannur, S/o. K.R. Ranganath Rao R.R. Kannur vs Madhu Prasad, W/o. Dr. Y.R. Ananth Prasad - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1700: States the court "affirming" that in electronic defamation, jurisdiction lies where the wrongful communication is felt, giving plaintiffs a choice. Explicit use of "affirming" signals positive endorsement.
Shama Mohamed vs Sanju Verma - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 602: Notes "affirming the plaintiff's right to sue in the court of her residence." Direct affirmation of jurisdiction based on cause of action arising there.
Shumita Deb W/o Mr. Jnan Ranjan Deb VS Gautam Bhattacharya - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 571: The court "ruled" that a defamation suit can be filed where defamatory material is circulated. Indicates a definitive holding without negative treatment indicators.
Medhavi Skills University, Sikkim vs Nikita Thakuria - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 403: The court "ruled" that without part cause of action in jurisdiction, the plaint could not be maintained, per CPC Sections 19 and 20. Positive statement of jurisdictional rule.
Siddharth Chugh S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Chugh vs Array Networks India Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2745: "The jurisdiction... is determined by where the alleged defamatory impact occurs, asserting the importance..." Indicates a ruling emphasizing substantiated claims.
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 2: Contains fragmented text referencing "(1998) 2 SCC 70, paras. 16 and 27; Sameer Madan v." No clear indication of treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished); appears to be a partial citation without context on how it was treated.
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 264: Fragmented with "(1998) 2 SCC 70, Paras 16 and 27; Sameer Madan v. ... The defendants being residents of Mumbai..." References a case but no explicit treatment keyword; context about defendants' residence is incomplete.
Operation Mercy India Foundation vs Meta Platforms INC - 2026 0 Supreme(Del) 193: References "Sameer Wankhede" as stating a "rule" called the "Merger Rule," with quoted conclusion. Mentions "This rule has been referred to in Sameer Wankhede," suggesting possible reliance or following, but lacks explicit treatment language like "followed" or "applied"; the descriptive phrasing makes treatment ambiguous.
Defamation suits can be filed in the jurisdiction where the reputational harm is felt, under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without needing leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
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....
The court ruled that a suit for defamation can be filed in the jurisdiction where the defamatory material is circulated, regardless of where it was published.
The jurisdiction for defamation suits is determined by where the alleged defamatory impact occurs, asserting the importance of substantiated claims regarding the distribution and consequences of defa....
The court ruled that without a part cause of action occurring within its jurisdiction, the plaint for defamation could not be maintained, highlighting jurisdictional boundaries as dictated by Section....
Jurisdiction in defamation cases, particularly online, must align with both the location of the wrong and the residence of the defendants, mandating the plaintiff to file in the appropriate jurisdict....
The jurisdiction of a defamation suit depends on where the wrong was committed, and plaintiffs must establish jurisdiction based on actual residency and occurrence of harm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant had the option to file the suit in the court within the local limits of jurisdiction where the wrong occurred, as provided un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
