Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Seva Bharathi, Tamilnadu “SEVA” Second Floor Chennai Rep by its Trustee Rabu Manohar – Appellant
Versus
Surendar @ Naathikan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side of CPC praying for the following judgment and decree against the defendants.
a) for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/-;
b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or anyone acting on the defendant's behalf from posting any messages, pictures or graphical representation of any nature that are defamatory, derogatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff;
c) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology in any national newspaper for the defamatory and derogatory posts against the plaintiff;
d] Awarding cost.)
1. This suit has been filed for damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/- and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posting any messages that are defamatory or in the nature of threat against the plaintiff and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue a public apology to the plaintiff in any national newspaper.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as follows :
The judgment establishes the principle that individuals and organizations are entitled to protection from defamation, especially in the context of social media, and emphasizes the limitations on free....
Defamation – Merely under pretext of freedom of expression one cannot make interview intruding privacy of others.
Defamation on permanent digital platforms is actionable per se, rendering proof of actual harm unnecessary. Provocation serves only to mitigate damages rather than negate liability, and strict adhere....
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....
Defamation entails proving the defamatory nature of statements, with the burden on the claimant, and established principles regarding publication and damages can presume harm to reputation without ne....
The court established that defamatory statements made on social media can lead to liability, regardless of the defendant's belief in their truth, and awarded damages for reputational harm.
The burden of proof in defamation lies with the claimant to establish that the statements are defamatory, refer to them, and were published, with damages awarded for reputational harm.
Defamatory statements made by defendants were found to be untrue and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation, with malice evident in their publication, leading to awarded damages.
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
