https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108144 A claim for injunction against a television commercial failed because actionable disparagement requires falsity, and the commercial was treated as a truthful correction of the plaintiff's public image of its soap as antiseptic. The Court also considered the suit procedurally and equitably defective: no substantive damages claim was pleaded, prior rejection before the advertising self-regulatory body was suppressed, delay was present, and an equally efficacious remedy before the M.R.T.P. Commission was available. On that reasoning, discretionary injunctive relief was refused and the impugned advertisement could continue. en-us Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:50:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108144 A claim for injunction against a television commercial failed because actionable disparagement requires falsity, and the commercial was treated as a truthful correction of the plaintiff's public image of its soap as antiseptic. The Court also considered the suit procedurally and equitably defective: no substantive damages claim was pleaded, prior rejection before the advertising self-regulatory body was suppressed, delay was present, and an equally efficacious remedy before the M.R.T.P. Commission was available. On that reasoning, discretionary injunctive relief was refused and the impugned advertisement could continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108144