https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287096 A claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendant instituted or continued proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, acted with malice, and that the proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour. On the facts discussed, the respondent had grounds to believe the appellant and property dealers acted together in the transfer transaction, including use of an unauthorised application and a false assertion that payment had been made. The complaint was therefore not shown to be wholly invented or driven by spite, and the burden of disproving reasonable and probable cause was not discharged. No material was found to infer malice from the circumstances proved. en-us Fri, 26 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:47:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287096 A claim for malicious prosecution requires proof that the defendant instituted or continued proceedings without reasonable and probable cause, acted with malice, and that the proceedings ended in the plaintiff's favour. On the facts discussed, the respondent had grounds to believe the appellant and property dealers acted together in the transfer transaction, including use of an unauthorised application and a false assertion that payment had been made. The complaint was therefore not shown to be wholly invented or driven by spite, and the burden of disproving reasonable and probable cause was not discharged. No material was found to infer malice from the circumstances proved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287096