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

1954 Supreme(Ori) 9

MOHAPATRA, PANIGRAHI
BALAKRISHNA KAR – Appellant
Versus
H. K. MAHATAB – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.DAS, B.M.PATNAIK

PANIGRAHI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 115, Civil P. C. , against an order of the subordinate Judge, Cut-tack, calling upon the defendants in a suit for defamation to begin their case. The plaintiff opposite party filed the suit for defamation claiming Rs. 1 lakh as damages, for alleged libel on his reputation caused by certain writings in the "matrubhumi" of which the defendants are the Editor and the Publisher. The defendants' case is that these publications do not constitute libel; they also plead, in the alternative, fair comment, privilege and justification by truth. These being the allegations and the counter-allegations, the trial Court framed issue No. 4 as follows: "is the plaintiff entitled to recover damages from the defendants; if so how much and from whom?" sometime later, on an application made by the plaintiff, the learned Subordinate judge framed some additional issues. Issues No. 4 and 5 as thus framed read as follows:

"4. Whether the articles referred to in the plaint and the extract quoted therein were published" maliciously? 5. Whether the articles referred to in the plaint and the extracts quoted therein constitute libel on the plaintiff?"











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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top