<?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>2018 (8) TMI 2013 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293262</link>
    <description>Defamation under Section 499 IPC requires an imputation made or published to a person other than the complainant, and publication means communication to a third party. A legal notice sent only to the complainant&#039;s office address was insufficient because there was no material showing that any employee or other person actually opened, read, or received it. On that basis, the essential ingredient of publication was not established and the defamation allegation could not be sustained. The court also noted that the accused resided outside the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction and that no Section 202 CrPC inquiry was shown before issuance of process, reinforcing that the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:02:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 2013 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293262</link>
      <description>Defamation under Section 499 IPC requires an imputation made or published to a person other than the complainant, and publication means communication to a third party. A legal notice sent only to the complainant&#039;s office address was insufficient because there was no material showing that any employee or other person actually opened, read, or received it. On that basis, the essential ingredient of publication was not established and the defamation allegation could not be sustained. The court also noted that the accused resided outside the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction and that no Section 202 CrPC inquiry was shown before issuance of process, reinforcing that the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>