Absolute privilege in quasi-judicial proceedings barred damages claim based on customs investigation statements.

Statements made during customs investigation proceedings under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as absolutely privileged because they were recorded in a quasi-judicial setting. The Court held that such statements could not found a claim for defamation, libel or slander, and that "malicious implication" was not a separate actionable tort. As the plaint disclosed only a defamation-based grievance with no independent cause of action, the suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for damages based on statements made by officials before customs authorities in proceedings under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable, or whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that such statements were protected by absolute privilege and did not give rise to a legally recognised tort.

Analysis: The statements forming the basis of the claim were made during customs investigation proceedings conducted by authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers. The Court held that statements recorded in such proceedings are protected by absolute privilege and cannot be the foundation of an action for defamation, libel or slander. It further held that the pleaded grievance of "malicious implication" is not an independent tort and, in substance, the plaint disclosed only a defamation-based claim, for which no cause of action arose on the facts pleaded.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, and a civil claim for damages cannot be maintained on the basis of such statements where no separate actionable tort is disclosed.

---