Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Leishman Vs. Holland

Leishman vs Holland

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 03, 1890
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776511

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Defamation - Privilege--Communication by a servant of a company to one of his subordinates as to another subordinate. - - Here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any p...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Leishman

Respondent

Holland

Legal References

Reported In
(1891)ILR14Mad51

Excerpt

defamation - privilege--communication by a servant of a company to one of his subordinates as to another subordinate. - - here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; 2. agreeing with the subordinate judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them.1. this suit stands on an entirely different footing from that which has been prosecuted by the plaintiff against the company. here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; and, secondly, it has to be seen whether they were made maliciously and with knowledge on the defendant's part that they were false.2. agreeing with the subordinate judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them. we dismiss the appeal with costs.

Full Judgment

1. This suit stands on an entirely different footing from that which has been prosecuted by the plaintiff against the company. Here the first question is whether the statements complained of by the plaintiff, which, in themselves, are certainly defamatory, were made under circumstances conferring on the defendant any privilege; and, secondly, it has to be seen whether they were made maliciously and with knowledge on the defendant's part that they were false.

2. Agreeing with the Subordinate Judge, we are clearly of opinion that the statements were all in the nature of privileged communications, and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant believed them to be untrue when he made them or acted maliciously in making them. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial