Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
LIM LEONG HOCK vs HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD AND ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2311
"] states: The alleged defamatory words as uttered must be reproduced verbatim in the statement of claim; and a certified translation in the National Language must also be tendered. This principle is reiterated across multiple cases, emphasizing that mere descriptions or summaries are insufficient; the exact words in the original language must be pleaded, with a certified translation provided. Similarly, ["Lim Leong Hock vs Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
"] confirms: It is sufficient that the original defamatory words are pleaded verbatim in their original language and that a certified Malay translation is properly provided to the court. The absence of a certified translation can render a claim defective or invalid, as seen in cases like ["MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - High Court
"] and ["DING MING MING vs LIM SU JIN & ANOR - High Court
"], where failure to provide a certified translation was deemed a procedural and substantive deficiency.LIM LEONG HOCK vs HUA HANG SHIPPING & TRADING (M) SDN BHD AND ORS - 2025 MarsdenLR 2311
"], ["Lim Leong Hock vs Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors
"], ["MABEL SHEELA VICTOR MUTTIAH vs CLARE LOUISE BROWN - High Court
"], ["DING MING MING vs LIM SU JIN & ANOR - High Court
"]
In the realm of , precision is paramount. When defamatory statements are made in a language other than the court's official language, questions arise about . A common query among litigants is: under India law, whether certified translation of defamatory words is required? This blog post delves into this procedural nuance, drawing from established legal principles in India, English common law influences, and persuasive precedents from jurisdictions like Malaysia that mirror Indian practices.
Defamation cases hinge on the exact wording of the impugned statements. Courts demand to assess if they bear a defamatory meaning. But what happens when those words are in Hindi, regional languages, or even foreign tongues? Let's unpack the legal position.
Generally, under Indian law, a certified translation of defamatory words is required in and court documents. This ensures accuracy, authenticity, and clarity of the alleged defamatory statements. Courts treat this as a strict procedural rule. Failure to provide one may constitute a deficiency that weakens or invalidates the claim. The emphasis is on reproducing the exact words in the original language alongside a certified translation. 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278
Key points include:- Strict procedural mandate: Certified translations are not optional in multilingual contexts.- Risk of dismissal: Non-compliance can lead to rejection of .
- Court's assessment: Judges must evaluate the precise defamatory content, making authenticity crucial.
Indian courts, influenced by English law, insist that the actual words and not merely their substance should be set forth verbatim in the or . 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278 This principle ensures the court can independently determine if the words are defamatory of the plaintiff.
In India, defamation is under , for criminal cases, and as a in civil suits. under , require particularity. For defamatory words, underscores rejection for insufficient cause, often tied to imprecise . 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1213
When defamatory words are not in English or the court's language, certification becomes essential. Indian courts implicitly align with this by stressing accuracy. Persuasive Malaysian jurisprudence, sharing common law roots, explicitly mandates it: the alleged defamatory words as uttered must be reproduced verbatim in the and a certified translation must be tendered.
In Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors, the ruled: Courts require the original defamatory statement in its original language and a certified translation into Bahasa Malaysia as per .
Failure here is a that can be fatal to a defamation claim.
Indian cases echo this procedural rigor. For instance, in involving foreign documents, courts have refused relief for uncertified translations, noting: The translation has not been certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent... The petitioner was, however, entitled to produce the English translation... certified as correct in such manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 199 This underscores certification's role across civil proceedings.
Another Malaysian precedent reinforces: the translation of both the articles concerned was not done by a certified translator as required under O 92 r 1... held mandatory by the then .
The counterclaim was dismissed for lacking it initially.
Indian jurisprudence emphasizes verbatim . In Govind Ramchandra v. Gangadhar Mahadeo, the court held that allegations must be precise, aligning with the need for certified accuracy in translations. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2174
Courts determine if words are capable of a defamatory meaning and are capable of being defamatory of the plaintiff. 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1213 Without certified translations, this assessment falters. In a case under , proceedings were quashed where statements fell within exceptions to Section 499 IPC, but procedural fidelity was key. 2015 0 Supreme(AP) 925
Malaysian cases provide further insight: plaintiffs must prove words are defamatory, refer to them, and were published. Translations into Bahasa Malaysia were scrutinized for accuracy.
No blanket exceptions appear in the reviewed precedents. However, procedural defects like uncertified translations are rarely curable post- if challenged. Courts may allow amendments, but repeated non-compliance risks dismissal.
In contexts, statements may enjoy immunity, but core defamation still demand precision. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2174
To safeguard your defamation claim:- Reproduce verbatim: Always include original defamatory words in .- Secure certification: Use qualified translators, notaries, or diplomatic agents as per law. 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 199- Document thoroughly: Attach certification affidavits to preempt challenges.- Seek early advice: Consult counsel to align with CPC and local rules.
These steps mitigate risks of procedural rejection, as seen in cases where counterclaims failed for translation lapses.
While Indian documents like 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278 focus on , the implicit need for certified translations arises from evidentiary standards under the ( for documents). Persuasive foreign cases fill the gap, given shared common law heritage. English law's insistence on exact words bolsters this. 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278
In one Indian suit, statements in proceedings before Customs were non-defamatory due to context, but required precision regardless. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2174
In summary, Indian law generally requires certified translations of defamatory words in when not in the court's language. This upholds fairness, allowing courts to scrutinize claims accurately. Non-compliance may prove fatal, as procedural rules are mandatory.
Key Takeaways:- Verbatim original + certified translation is standard.- Aligns with English and Malaysian precedents.
1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278- Failure risks dismissal.
This post provides general information based on precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
References:1. 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 278: Verbatim words in .2.
: Certified translation mandate.3.
: Procedural fatality.4.
: Original and certified translation.5.
: Mandatory certification.6. 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 199: Certification standards.7. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2174: Precision in allegations.8. 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 1213: Court's role in defamation assessment. #IndiaDefamationLaw #CertifiedTranslation #DefamationClaims
[63] The Plaintiff submits that the law requires the defamatory words pleaded to be translated into Bahasa Malaysia. However, it does not require that the body of the pleading itself must contain the certified translation. ... Based on the plain wording of this judgment, it is evident that the law imposes two distinct requirements: (a) That the alleged defamatory words must be reproduced verbatim in their original language in the statement of claim;....
[63]The Plaintiff submits that the law requires the defamatory words pleaded to be translated into Bahasa Malaysia. However, it does not require that the body of the pleading itself must contain the certified translation. ... The certified translation serves the purpose of meeting the national language requirement not as a substitute for the original defamatory words, but as an aid to the court’s understanding. ... This is not a me....
Having decided whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, the next step in the inquiry is for a Court to ascertain whether the words complained of are in fact defamatory. ... with a certified translation in the language of the Court, in the absence of which the claim will fail. ... In this regard, the plaintiff admits that the 1st Impugned Defamatory Article, which has been reduced in the Amended S....
Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd & Anor; [2021] 5 MLJ 836; [2021] 7 CLJ 353, which reaffirmed that the exact defamatory words must be pleaded in their original language and accompanied by a certified translation in Bahasa Melayu, failing which the action is defective. ... I will therefore rely on the original Mandarin text and its certified translation in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, giving appropriate weight to the Defendants' ob....
The alleged defamatory words as uttered must be reproduced verbatim in the statement of claim and a certified translation must be tendered. ... Hua Hang Shipping & Trading (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors , the High Court decided as follows: "[82] Courts require the original defamatory statement in its original language and a certified translation into Bahasa Malaysia as per O 92 r 1 of the Rules of 2012 ... of the Alleged Defamatory Statement. ... tr....
[Emphasis is Mine] Whether The Certified True English Translation Of Exh P1 Is Accurate? ... Whether Words Complained Of Were Defamatory Of The Plaintiff? ... Whether Knowledge, Control & Consent For Publication Are Required? ... a defamatory meaning, which is a question of law depending on the construction of the words published. ... The test is whether reasonable people migh....
are defamatory; (2) the words refer to the plaintiff; and (3) the words were published. ... (b) Whether the Plaintiff has proven the elements of the tort of defamation against the Defendant, namely: (i) The disputed words are defamatory in nature (ii) The words refer to the Plaintiff; and (c) The words were published. ... Other Issues Bahasa Malaysia Translations Of The Defamatory Statements [82] In this case, the Court has also....
[14] The duty of this court is to determine whether the words complained of were in law capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, which is a question of law depending on the construction of the words published. ... Whether Words Complained Of Were Defamatory Of The Plaintiff? ... [Emphasis is Mine] Whether The Certified True English Translation Of Exh P1 Is Accurate? ... ....
Secondly, the translation of both the articles concerned was not done by a certified translator as required under O 92 r 1. The requirement of such translation was held mandatory by the then Supreme Court decision of Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd v. ... Instead the Defendant merely annexed a copy of the article published by the Plaintiff to the Counterclaim without a certified translation. Subsequently, the Defendant then applied to amend the Counterclaim by including a certi....
Defamatory Words Were Not Pleaded In Bahasa Melayu [8] The respondents did not translate the alleged defamatory words into the national language, as required by the Court of Appeal in Rekha Munisamy v. ... Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik & Ors; [1997] 5 MLJ 523, where the Court held that defamatory words must be reproduced in their original language and accompanied by a certified translation into Bahasa Melayu, failing which the claim w....
The same view has been accepted and expressed in a later Division Bench ruling reported in Govind Ramchandra v. Gangadhar Mahadeo. The Court, after considering the Indian law on the issue went on to hold as under: “30. In that case allegations were made in a petition as well as in the affidavit in support of it, addressed to the High Court for taking steps under the Bar Council Act, 1926, against a legal practitioner under the disciplinary jurisdiction and the legal practitioner filed a suit to recover damages for libel contained in the petition as well as in the affidavit. In othe....
Here, in India also it is the duty of the Court to say whether the statements complained of are in fact defamatory, and, defamatory of the plaintiff. In libel, damage is presumed and no doubt punitive or, as they are sometimes called, vindicative damages may be given, but extravagance is not to be permitted." In actions for defamation the function of the Court "is to say whether the words complained of are capable of a defamatory meaning and are capable of being defamatory of the plaintiff".
Whether special damage has also been suffered, that will remain a matter of proof, and if so proved, the plaintiff will be entitled to recover on that score along with general damages. In India, if words have been proved to be defamatory of the plaintiff, general damages will always be presumed since all defamatory words are actionable per-se. Special damages, on the other hand, are such as the law will not infer from the nature of the words themselves; they must, therefore, be specially claimed on the pleadings and evidence of them must be given at the trial. The Court may....
The translation has not been certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of Korea. The petitioner was, however, entitled to produce the English translation of the award provided such translation was certified as correct in such manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India.
( 10 ) THE respondent prayed in the suit for a restraint order against the defendants from publishing, circulating or selling the said autobiography or any extract pertaining to respondent and her family, in any manner, as reproduced in the article in India Today and further claimed damages against appellant no. ( 10 ) THE respondent prayed in the suit for a restraint order against the defendants from publishing, circulating or selling the said autobiography or any extract pertaining to respondent and her family, in any manner, as reproduced in the article in India Today and further claimed ....
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
