Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Seva Bharathi, Tamilnadu – Appellant
Versus
Surendar @ Naathikan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
N. Sathish Kumar, J.—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:
It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a charitable trust engaged in rendering yeoman service for the poor and needy belonging to all sections of the society. It runs various educational and other charitable institutions which provide education and relief to destitute women and the needy. The plaintiff has got a very good reputation in the society. When the matter stood thus, the defendant with a malafide intention telecasted a video in Youtube during the first week of July 2020 under the banner of Karuppar Desam, wherein, the defendant has made completely false, baseless and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff with regard to the alleged murder of two persons inside the police station. It is further stated and alleged in the video, as
Defamation – Merely under pretext of freedom of expression one cannot make interview intruding privacy of others.
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 – When a man walks, his reputation walk ahead of him—Reputation is integral part of a man.
A plaintiff in a defamation action must prove that the statements were defamatory, refer to them, and were published; failure to attend trial can lead to acceptance of the plaintiff's claims as true.
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.
The court established that defamatory statements made by the defendants were untrue and damaging, leading to liability for both libel and slander, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.
The court established that defamatory statements must be proven false, refer to the plaintiff, and be published, with the defendant bearing the burden of proof in defamation cases.
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
