Back
HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS
Soumendra Kumar Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Sheshadri Goswami – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harish Tandon, J.
Despite the service having effected upon the respondent there is no appearance on their behalf. The supplementary affidavit filed by the plaintiff/appellant containing various documents revealing that the address at which the service is effected is the address shown by the respondent and, therefore, the service should be treated to have been effected upon them.
2. We, thus, proceeded to dispose of the appeal in their absence as they did not appear despite the service having effected upon them.
3. The present appeal arises from an order dated 7th January, 2023 and 16th January, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court, Alipore in MS no. 13 of 2023 filed by the appellant claiming compensation/damages for the defamatory statement made against him by the defendants along with the permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from publishing and/or approaching the persons of the society with the notion that the plaintiff has been disclosed in relation to the affairs of the then company in which he held the post of a Director. The entire claim in the plaint is founded upon a purported letter dated 1st December, 2022 claime
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to grant injunction in defamation suits, and the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute but is circ....
The judgment established the need to protect reputation from unsubstantiated allegations and highlighted the balance between freedom of speech and the right to safeguard reputation.
The judgment establishes that defamatory statements can be restrained by injunction if they threaten irreparable harm to a person's reputation, balancing free speech with the right to reputation.
The court ruled that the right to freedom of speech takes precedence over defamation claims unless a strong prima facie case is established, underscoring the necessity to balance fundamental rights.
The balance between the right to privacy and freedom of expression must be upheld, emphasizing that claims of defamation require full trial for verification.
The judgment established the balance between freedom of speech and expression and the right to reputation, and granted interim relief to protect the reputation of the plaintiffs.
The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected, but it does not entitle anyone to resort to speech that is defamatory. In a defamation suit, the Defendant has the burden of proving the tr....
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
