Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Major General’s Reputation Restored : Landmark Defamation Judgment Awards Rs. 2 Crores in Damages

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark defamation case, the honorable Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered a judgment that has awarded a whopping Rs. 2 crores in damages to a retired Major General. The judgment, dated July 21, 2023, marks a significant victory for the plaintiff, who had filed a suit against Defendants No. 1 to 4 for inserting false and defamatory comments in the transcripts of an interview titled “Operation West End.”

The plaintiff, a man of repute and Integrity, had served the nation as a Major General in the Army. However, his character was severely maligned by the defamatory comments inserted in the transcripts, alleging corruption and bribery. The court observed that these comments caused an appreciable injury to his reputation, leading to widespread defamation and public ridicule.

The judgment categorically established that the comments added by Defendant No. 3, the supervising agency, were completely false and baseless. The plaintiff vehemently denied making any such remarks during the interview, and the court concurred with the lack of evidence to support the authenticity of the comments. The defendants’ attempts to defend themselves on the grounds of good faith and public interest were soundly rejected by the court.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized the grave consequences of alleging corruption against a senior Army Officer, stating, “There cannot be any more blatant case of causing serious harm and injury to the reputation of an honest Army Officer, who despite all the endeavors of defendants, had refused to accept any bribe.”

The court further clarified that the apology sought by the plaintiff through a legal notice had become irrelevant given the severity of the harm caused to his reputation. The plaintiff had already faced a Court of Inquiry and was awarded severe displeasure, even though the Court of Inquiry recognized that no misconduct was proven against him.

Revealing the reasons behind the quantum of damages, the court emphasized the enormity of the defamation suffered by the plaintiff, resulting in ill fame for more than 23 years. The awarded damages of Rs. 2 crores were deemed necessary to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of his reputation and honor, caused by the defendants’ defamatory actions.

The judgment serves as a stern rem”nder’that defamation laws are in place to protect an individual’s reputation and that no one should be subjected to false and malicious imputations. It sets a precedent for future defamation cases, underlining the importance of truth and good faith in any public commentary.

The case has drawn significant attention, given the involvement of high-ranking officials and media houses. The judgment highlights the need for responsible journalism and accurate reporting to safeguard the reputation and dignity of individuals in public service.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2023

MAJOR GENERAL M.S. AHLUWALIA,  vs M/S TEHELKA.COM

 

Similar News