Back
TEEKAA RAMAN
Edapadi K. Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
Dhanapal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suit for damages and for compensatory claim:
The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for claiming damages for a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- caused to the plaintiff by a defamatory interview given by the defendant on 24.08.2023, 05.09.2023 and 07.09.2023, and for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants or persons acting through or under him an on his behalf from in any manner whatsoever releasing, circulating, publishing or giving interviews and post any items, messages on social media containing allegations as found or resembling to one in the document No.1 to 3 filed along with the plaint.
2. The sum and substance of the plaint averment is that the plaintiff / applicant was the former Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu who is presently the Leader of the Opposition for the Tamil Nadu State Assembly; the plaintiff / applicant has been in politics for over four decades and built up an unblemished reputation in public service and he had succinctly contested in several elections and got elected to the State Assembly, five times; the plaintiff is also the General Secretary of his political party, “All
Defamation – When a man walks, his reputation walk ahead of him—Reputation is integral part of a man.
The court ruled that a plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the statements were defamatory, but the defendant's failure to present evidence can shift the burden back to the plaintiff to establis....
A plaintiff must substantiate claims of defamation with specific allegations and evidence of reputational harm, which cannot be based merely on general assertions or unverified statements.
The right to free expression by the press is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual's right to privacy and reputation; defamatory statements must be substantiated.
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.
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.
Defamatory publications must be verified for truth; failure to do so can result in liability for damages.
A claimant in defamation does not need to prove fame to seek damages; jurisdiction was properly assessed under CPC provisions.
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
