Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Principle: A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers to. Defamation is of two kinds-
(1) Libel, when the defamatory statement is in some permanent and visible form and
(2) Slander, when it is in some trasitefy form, visible or audible. Libel is actionable per se, but slander is actionable only on proof of actual damage.
Factual Situation: A person accused of a crime is arrested by the police. The police give an open statement that the suspect had an extra-marital affair. It is subsequently proved in court that the suspect was innocent of the crime. Will the accused succeed if he files a civil suit for defamation, claiming compensation against the police?

Principle: A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers to. Defamation is of two kinds-
(1) Libel, when the defamatory statement is in some permanent and visible form and
(2) Slander, when it is in some trasitefy form, visible or audible. Libel is actionable per se, but slander is actionable only on proof of actual damage.
Factual Situation: A person accused of a crime is arrested by the police. The police give an open statement that the suspect had an extra-marital affair. It is subsequently proved in court that the suspect was innocent of the crime. Will the accused succeed if he files a civil suit for defamation, claiming compensation against the police? Correct Answer He will not succeed as it was a bonafide allegation made by the police in the course of the investigation

Related Questions

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
Which of the following statements are correct in the context of Section 5 of Code of Civil Procedure?
1. Revenue Court is a part of Civil Court
2. Civil Court. means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure but not Revenue Court
3. Civil Court means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure including Revenue Court
4. Revenue Court is not a part of Civil Court
In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?
Principle: A plaintiff who suffers some injury will be entitled to receive compensation even if he suffers no loss.
Factual Situation: Reddy was a strong political worker of Party X. He was proceeding to the poling booth at about 7:30 am, to cast his vote in favour of Mr. Naik, his party candidate. On the way, the State Police officials suspected Reddy to be an anti-social element and took him into custody for questioning. Reddy pleaded with the officials that he was a genuine voter and had no previous criminal records and requested them to allow him to cast his vote. The officials allegedly detained him in custody till about 4:45 pm and thereafter released him, recording that they could not find any thing against him. By the time Reddy reached the poling booth the polling time was over and he could not vote for Mr. Naik. When the results were declared Mr. Naik got a Majority of over 6000 votes and Party X got the majority to form the Government. Reddy files a suit for compensation against the State.
Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in respect of confessional evidence
1. So much of the information as it relates distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of information received from the person accused may be proved against him.
2. Person giving such information must be accused of an offence.
3. Accused need not be in the police custody.
4. Any statement of the accused confessing his guilt must be made in presence of a Magistrate, in all cases, whether anything is discovered or not in consequence of such statement, may be proved against him.
X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances.
The police arrested four criminals - P, Q, R and S. The criminals knew each other. They made the following statements: P says “Q committed the crime.” Q says “S committed the crime.” R says “I did not do it.” S says “What Q said about me is false.” Assume only one of the arrested four committed the crime and only one of the statements made above is true. Who committed the crime?
In a murder case, police rounded up four suspects and one of those is surely a killer. These four suspects made the following statements: Suspect A said, “I am not the killer”. Suspect B said, “I am the killer”. Suspect C said, “A is the killer”. Suspect D said, “C is lying”. If out of the given four statements, only one statement is correct, then identify who is the real killer?