<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (8) TMI 1423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197714</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the publication was not defamatory but made in good faith for public safety. Emphasizing freedom of speech, the court found the publication fell under qualified privilege, meeting criteria like verifying information and including the plaintiff&#039;s perspective. No damages or injunction were granted, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197714</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the suit, ruling that the publication was not defamatory but made in good faith for public safety. Emphasizing freedom of speech, the court found the publication fell under qualified privilege, meeting criteria like verifying information and including the plaintiff&#039;s perspective. No damages or injunction were granted, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>