Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Defamation

SHAHED KAMAL & ORS. versus M/S A. SURTI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

The appellants, being homebuyers in a business relationship with the developer, peacefully displayed a banner listing factual grievances in mild, non-intemperate language; on the material before the Court the imputation was made in good faith for the protection of their and other homeowners' legitimate interests and falls within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, and their protest is protected by Articles 19(1)(a),(b),(c); therefore the criminal complaint and summons under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and amount to an abuse of process.

Source excerpt

  • 9th exception to section 499 ipc
  • Qualified privilege
  • Freedom of speech and expression
  • Right to protest peacefully
  • Section 500 ipc
  • Section 34 ipc
Read case analysis
Defamation

BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. versus ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED

The Supreme Court set aside the trial Court's ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the Single Judge of the High Court's order because neither court applied its mind to the facts in assessing the three-fold test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) nor provided reasoned analysis; such unreasoned ex-parte injunctions in defamation matters risk unjustified prior restraint of journalistic expression and must be granted only in exceptional circumstances after proper evaluation or hearing.

Source excerpt

  • Interim injunctions
  • Ex-parte injunctions
  • Three-fold test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm)
  • Bonnard standard
  • Slapp suits
  • Freedom of speech vs. reputation and privacy
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH versus NIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR

When issuing process on a complaint for defamation the Magistrate must form a prima facie opinion based on the complaint and materials before him whether there is sufficient ground to proceed; he may, but is not required to, consider Exceptions to Section 499 IPC and may dismiss a complaint at the threshold if those materials disclose a complete defence; a High Court under Section 482 CrPC may quash only where, on the complaint and materials that were before the Magistrate, no prima facie defamation is made out; applying these principles, the Trial Court's summoning order on the materials bef…

Source excerpt

  • Summoning order
  • Exceptions to section 499 ipc
  • Quashing proceedings under section 482 crpc
  • Role and duties of magistrate under sections 200/202/203/204 crpc
  • Burden of proof for exceptions to section 499 ipc
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI versus MANISH SISODIA & ORS

Persons falling under Section 199(2) CrPC may either follow the special procedure in Section 199(4) (complaint by Public Prosecutor with sanction) or may invoke the preserved individual right under Section 199(6) to file a complaint before a Magistrate; the special procedure does not extinguish the individual right. Further, the tweets by accused No.5 were held not to be defamatory within Section 499 IPC as they were general/vague allegations (e.g. 'your answer will disclose your scam') lacking the specificity and propensity to harm reputation, and therefore the summoning order is set aside i…

Source excerpt

  • Section 199 crpc procedure
  • Private complaint under section 200 crpc
  • Defamation (sections 499,500 ipc)
  • Summoning order
  • Section 65b indian evidence act
  • Compensation/protection provisions (sections 237,250 crpc)
Read case analysis
Criminal law

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA & ANR. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

The Judicial Magistrate, Kangan had no jurisdiction or authority to enforce the attendance of petitioners by arrest under the impugned order. Where contemptuous actions are of a general nature, any subordinate court perceiving the act as aimed at it can make a reference to the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1997. The Magistrate must proceed in accordance with law and, if proceeding under Ranbir Penal Code, must consider Section 199-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of lower judiciary in contempt proceedings
  • Initiation of contempt proceedings
  • Defamation through published reports
Read case analysis
Criminal law

GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE versus FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL AND ANR.

The Editor whose name is printed in the newspaper is presumed responsible for publication and selection of content as per s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and specific allegations in the complaint against both the Editor and Resident Editor were sufficient to proceed with prosecution; the High Court quashed the complaint based on an erroneous assumption of fact, warranting reversal.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of complaint
  • Defamation by publication
  • Liability of editor
  • Presumption under press and registration of books act
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M.A. RUMUGAM versus KITTU @ KIRSHNAMOORTHY

Allegations in complaint make out a case for proceeding under Section 500 IPC; it is premature at this stage to determine good faith and exceptions under Section 499; burden of proof for exception lies on appellant.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of proceedings
  • Burden of proof
  • Sections 499, 500 ipc
  • Section 482 crpc
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

THREE CHEERS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus C.E.S.C. LTD.

The facts did not establish willful disobedience or contumacious conduct; contempt proceedings were initiated prematurely as the trial had not concluded on disputed facts; the appointment of receivers lacked jurisdictional basis and due process was not followed.

Source excerpt

  • Contempt proceedings
  • Interlocutory injunction
  • Appointment of receiver
Read case analysis
Torts

MAGNA PUBLISHERS CO. LTD. & ORS. versus SHILPA S. SHETTY

The interim injunction restraining publication of specific defamatory articles and similar imputations continues to operate pending disposal of the suit; no opinion expressed on merits; High Court requested to dispose the suit at the earliest.

Source excerpt

  • Interim injunction
  • Defamation in media
  • Damages
  • Justification plea
Read case analysis
Criminal law

MAKSUD SAIYED versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

A bona fide mistake in the prospectus about the forum of the pending suit (DRT instead of City Civil Court) does not amount to criminal defamation and is not grounds for prosecuting the Directors and Managing Director, as Indian law does not provide for vicarious criminal liability in such circumstances unless specific statutory provision exists. High Court correctly quashed the complaint and investigation under Section 482 CrPC because the allegations at best gave rise to a civil or statutory violation, not personal criminal liability.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Section 482 crpc
  • Defamation under ipc
  • Corporate liability
  • Vicarious liability
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.