Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Shama Mohamed – Appellant
Versus
Sanju Verma – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
I.A. 48471/2024 (BY DEF. 1- ORDER VII, R 10 & 11)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the instant application, which has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. Mr. Raghav Awasthi, learned counsel for defendant No. 1, has taken this Court through paragraphs Nos. 17 and 18 of the plaint and contends that cumulative reading of both the paragraphs would indicate that no cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff to institute the instant civil suit. He further states that no jurisdiction arises for this Court to entertain the same.
3. Mr. Awasthi has also drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, wherein it was averred that the plaintiff is a resident of Kerala. He submits that, as per the memo of parties in the plaint, the plaintiff is stated to be a resident of Delhi, whereas the affidavit executed subsequent thereto indicates that the plaintiff is a resident of Kerala. Mr. Awasthi contends that such glaring inconsistencies in the pleadings are wholly unacceptable and render the plaintiff's case untenable. To substa
Jurisdiction in defamation suits depends on where the cause of action arises, affirming the plaintiff's right to sue in the court of her residence amidst conflicting claims.
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....
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....
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.
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 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....
Jurisdiction for defamation suits can be established based on location of reputational harm, and applications for return of plaint must consider circumstances as they existed at the time of filing.
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
