Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-04-2008
Reported in : (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)
..... effective in fighting bacteria, were obviously false, intended to mislead the consumers.9. the respondent originally filed a counter affidavit, wherein the respondent confined itself only to certain preliminary objections regarding the conduct of the plaintiff. it is stated in the said counter affidavit that in view of the fact that there are several litigations pending between the ..... distinction between malicious prosecution and defamation, in that 'defamation protects the plaintiff's reputation, while malicious falsehood protects the plaintiff's interest in his property or trade'. in its chapter on libel and slander, american jurisprudence, second edition, volume 50 declares that -generally, the publication of any false and malicious statement which tends to disparage the quality, condition, ..... for such a claim. therefore the usage of the words 'only' and 'first' actually falls within the meaning of unfair trade practice under section 2(1)(r)(1)(i) and (vi) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the claim made by the respondent tantamounts to a false representation that the goods are of a particular standard, quality and composition. it also ..... a newspaper and hence there would be a direct interference with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a). the same view was also reflected in bennett coleman and co. v. union of india : [1973]2scr757 .60. the view taken in hamdard dawakhana case was later explained in indian express newspapers (bombay) pvt ltd v .....
Tag this Judgment!