Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 363 2005 SLD 363 2005 CLD 840
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 91 of 1998, decision dated: 11-11-2004
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE
Manzoor ul Arifin for Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 (since dissolved). Nemo for Defendant No. 2.

SYED MEHMOOD ALI

VS

NETWORK TELEVISION MARKETING (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984

Section: 350

(a) Defamation Concept Defamation is insinuating representation or image disseminated or conveyed to a third person through any tangible medium of perception, may it be print, oral, audio or visual media or devices or any combination thereof causing harm, and impairment to the reputation, goodwill or estimation of a person, vocation or goods. (b) Tort Defamation Innuendo, in the context of action for tort of defamation, means oblique subtle or indirect implication in words or expression usually reckless, insolent and derogatory ensuing harm, injury and damage to the reputation, goodwill, and estimation of a person, goods or vocation. Tolley v. J.S. Fry and Sons Ltd. 1931 AC 333 and Charlston v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. (1995) 2 AC 65 ref. (c) Tort Defamation Compensation Conditions Generally a class or particular section or group of people cannot claim to be defamed as a class, section, group or community nor an individual can claim to be defamed by general reference to the class, section, group or community to which he belonged Exception to this generality could be claimed where it is demonstrated that the maligning or offensive defamation was directed, or innuendo angled or obliquely aimed towards a particular individual, person and/or concern or few identifiable individual, persons, goods or vocation Once the case is brought within the exception, action for libel or innuendo could be maintained by affected persons to vindicate the honour, compensate the loss and restore the image. Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Ltd. 1944 AC 116; Aspro Travel Ltd. v. Owners Abroad Group (1995) 4 All ER 728 C.A.; Hassan Razzaqi v. Mst. Mehrun Nisa Meher 1972 PCr.LJ 1175; Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Saleem Muhammad PLD 1996 Lah. 50 ref. (d) Defamation Burden of proof Damages Entitlement Tenor of evidence on record showed that documentary films telecasted, in the garb of general insinuations against the vendors of an edible product, the plaintiffs business concern (shop) was focused in particular; images of said business concern of the plaintiff were shown in the background and in the foreground people were shown commenting on plaintiffs edible product Average person with…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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