SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Cal) 14

High Court Of Calcutta
AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA
PIJUSH KANTI DATTA - Appellant
Versus
MANGILAL GIDIA - Respondent
Suit 454  Of  1985
Decided On : 01/10/1986

Advocates Appeared:
NIRMAL MITRA

Defamatory words charging the plaintiff with the commission of any crime, which may subject him to imprisonment or corporal punishment but not where the crime is punishable by fine only are actionable without proof of special damage.

Headnote:

DEFAMATION - WORDS CHARGING CRIME PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT OR CORPORAL PUNISHMENT - ACTIONABLE PER SE - DAMAGES - QUANTUM - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED - NOMINAL DAMAGES AWARDED.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a practicing Barrister, filed a defamation suit against the defendant, his tenant, for making false and malicious complaints to the police and other authorities, alleging that the plaintiff had committed various offenses, including assault and criminal trespass. The defendant did not appear or file a written statement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the words used by the defendant in the complaints were defamatory and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. However, the court also found that the defendant had not acted with the intention of defaming the plaintiff and that the publication of the defamatory words was limited to a small circle of people. Therefore, the court awarded only nominal damages of Rs. 1,000/-.

Issues: 1. Whether the words used by the defendant in the complaints were defamatory? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages? 3. If so, what should be the quantum of damages?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the words used by the defendant in the complaints were defamatory because they imputed criminal offenses to the plaintiff that could subject him to imprisonment or corporal punishment. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because the publication of the defamatory words had caused him mental agony and had damaged his reputation. 3. The court held that the quantum of damages should be nominal because the defendant had not acted with the intention of defaming the plaintiff and because the publication of the defamatory words was limited to a small circle of people.

Final Decision: The court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 30 gms.

AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.


( 1 ) THE plaintiff is a practising Barrister of this Court. His wife and his brother-in-law are stated to be the joint owners of the premises No. 4d, Lansdowne Road, Calcutta, where the plaintiff resides with his family in the first floor of the said premises. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff on 9th August, 1985 for a decree for Rs. 30 lakhs, being the damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiff by reason of certain alleged defamatory words written by the defendant who is a tenant of the second floor of the said premises since 1st October, 1979.

( 2 ) THE defendant entered appearance but did not file any written statement. This suit has appeared before me as an undefended suit on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Registrar, Original Side.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff briefly stated is as follows : the reservoir on the western side of the said premises is the only source of supply of water to the plaintiff and his family in the first floor and to the ground floor of the said premises also occupied by the plaintiff. On 2nd June, 1984 masons and labour were engaged by the owners of the said premises to repair the said reservoir, the same having developed cracks and breaches resulting into leakage of water on all sides of the said reservoir. On the same day i. e. 2-6-84 the defendant and the members of his family wrongfully, illegally, mala fide and out of motive actuated by malice prevented and/or resisted the repairs of the said reservoir as ascertained from the said owner, on, inter alia, the false, mala fide and malicious ground that it was really intended to make a forcible, wrongful, illegal and unauthorised construction on the said rear balcony Which the defendant untruly and mala fide claimed to be within his alleged tenancy. According to the plaintiff the tenancy of the said defendant was allegedly determined by a statutory notice dt. June 4, 1984 served upon the defendant. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the defendant on the same day i. e. 2-6-84 falsely, mala fide and maliciously made a complaint with the Lake Police Station, recorded in writing by the Deputy Officer and signed by the defendant being "g. D. E. No. 162 dt. June 2, 1984" falsely, mala fide, and maliciously alleging therein with express malice to his knowledge as follows :-"one Mr. M. L. Gidia of 4d, Lansdowne Place, 2nd floor, Calcutta-29, called at the P. S. and reported that he is the tenant of the said premises under Smt, Jyotsna Dutta. Today 2-6-84 morning at about 09. 30 hrs. one Mr. P. K. Dutta husband of the lanc3ladv called at the informants place with two persons for pretext of Painting works. The informant requested him to defer the work for a few days as there were a few guests with some children there. But he refused and enforced to complete to paint the door. Then one carpenter enter from balcony side and he attempted to close the door by putting the lock on the door. The informant protested for the same. Then the carpenter left the place. At about 11-30 hrs. Mr. P. K. Dutta called the informant at down at the ground floor and threatened him to allow his men to put the lock, otherwise he will use the force. The informant requested him not to do any unlawful work. Then the informant left for his office work. At about 15. 30 hrs. he got an information that Mr. Dutta entered his flat forcefully and beaten his son and his wife and also broken the balcony side door and damaged things. Again at about 16. 30 hrs. he received a telephonic information from his residence, that the landlord disconnected his water line and electricity. The informant also apprehended that he will create trouble by using force and we feel dangerous to live there with old lady and small children. He wants to have it recorded for future reference referred to Court. Sd /- T. Bose sd/- M. L. Gidia a. S. I. (Illegible)"it is a case of the plaintiff that "mr. P. K. Dutta" or "mr. Dutta", as used and expressed in the said complain


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top