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

1988 Supreme(Ori) 41

K.P.MOHAPATRA
JANAKI BALLAV PATNAIK – Appellant
Versus
BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO. LTD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.M.PATNAIK, R.MOHANTY

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the plaintiff for examination of defendant No. 1 on delivery of interrogatories under O. 11, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ).

( 2 ) IT is stated in the petition that in the plaint he has averred in para 24 that defendant 1 is a joint tort-feasor along with defendants 2 and 3. Defendant 1 in para 9 of the written statement has denied that it has anything to do with the libellous and offending articles published in the Illustrated Weekly of India dt. 18-24 May, 1986 and has any control over the contents of the magazine in keeping with the freedom of editor to publish what he considers fit. In para 10 of the written statement it specifically denied, its responsibility for payment of damages as a joint tort-feasor. In para 36 (b) of the written statement it denied that defendant 2 had printed and/or caused to be printed the offending articles in the press belonging to defendant 1. In para 36 (d) it further denied that being the employer of defendant 2 it is liable for damages for libellous and offending articles printed/published/circulated by defendant 2 within the ambit of his employment. On account of these denials




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