| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 542 1997 SLD 542 1997 CLC 1 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.310 of 1993, decision dated: 9-05-1996
RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J
Mumtaz A. Sheikh and Nazar H. Dhoon for Plaintiff. Defendant. Ex parte
Suit No.310 of 1993, decision dated: 9-05-1996
RASHEED AHMED RAZVI, J
Mumtaz A. Sheikh and Nazar H. Dhoon for Plaintiff. Defendant. Ex parte
PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS----Plaintiff
VS
UMAR SALEYA--Defendant
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Coast Guards Act (XVIII of 1973)-------S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 19---Tort---Damages---Action for libel by non-trading statutory body---Maintainability---Suit for damages by Pakistan Coast Guards against defendant who, in a press conference, had levelled serious charges of committing robbery by officers of plaintiff (Coast Guards)---Plaintiff claimed that plaintiff establishment being statutory body was established for purpose of preventing smuggling, illegal immigration to and migration from country, stopping enemy agents or saboteurs from infiltrating into country along coastal areas and supplementing defence in wars; that alleged act of defendant had damaged good image of plaintiff in public eyes and had caused serious damage to honour, respect and dignity of plaintiff--- Entitlement for damages---No undesirable fetters in law existed against freedom of speech--Law recognizes defence of justification, fair comments on matter of public interest and defence of absolute or qualified privilege under certain circumstances---Such defences were in fact some of safeguards on right of free speech especially in relation to conduct of public bodies and were available to a qualifying defendant---Article 19 of the Constitution, however, did not have effect of wiping off law of defamation---Where defendant had chosen to remain ex parte and had not raised any of the defences that must have been available to him, there was no question to consider any defence of justification or fair comment on working of public institution or of privilege---Imputation levelled against plaintiff and its officers indicated that they had affected reputation of plaintiff itself as opposed to reputation of its individual officers and could reasonably be understood as referring to plaintiff organisation itself---Several newspaper cuttings showing such imputations were produced in Court in proof of plaintiffs' allegations---Action for libel was, thus, maintainable and defendant having raised no defence, plaintiff had proved its case---Circulation of newspapers in which imputations against plaintiff were reported were commonly known to be widest in Pakistan---There was…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492