TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted in a defamation action where the defendants rely on a plea of justification and claim protection under freedom of speech and expression.
Analysis: The Court held that, in India, a mere plea of justification is not enough to defeat interim relief in a libel action. The defendants must show material supporting the truth of the publication, and the Court may scrutinise that material to test its veracity. The publication must be bona fide, in public interest, and preceded by reasonable precautions to ascertain the truth. Article 19(1)(a) does not confer an unfettered right to publish defamatory statements against a private party, and the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2), including defamation, remain relevant. On the facts, the expressions used in the press note were found to be highly damaging, and the material relied upon by the respondents did not justify such allegations.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to interim protection and that the refusal of injunction by the trial court was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the appellant obtained a limited injunction restraining defamatory statements imputing financial irregularity or dishonesty in relation to the project.
Ratio Decidendi: In a defamation-based interlocutory proceeding, a plea of justification must be supported by credible material showing bona fide publication in public interest and reasonable verification of truth before interim injunction can be refused.
TaxTMI 
