...plaintiff submitted that this suit is not barred by the law of limitation as it is a combined suit for malicious protection as also for defamation. Hence this present suit is not barred by the law of limitation. If...S. 7 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1974. If it is not a suit for malicious prosecution and if according to the plaintiff it is a suit for defamation than the alleged defamation was made by the defendant No. 6 by written complaint lodged with the police on 29th May, 1975. Hence, the present suit for defamation against the defendant No. 6 is wholly barred by the law of limitation. So...plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendants Nos. 5 to 11 except the defendant No. 6. So far as the defendant No. 6 is concerned as the plaintiff claims the suit to be a suit for defamation the claim against the defendant No. 6 is barred by the law of limitation. So...

...within the period of 30 days and there was nothing improper in the appeal being entertained. It is ironical that the issue of limitation has been raised since the suit for defamation was ex facie barred by limitation and...assess such aspect before proceeding with the suit and needlessly wasting courts time. The period prescribed for limitation for defamation or libel is one year from the date of the action or the publication. Since the act of defamation in this case was on October 14, 2001 the suit could...700071 and the same is continuing. Thus, the act of defamation by declining the use of the credit card took place on October 14, 2001. The suit was filed in 2003. Section 3...

...beyond the period of limitation and the learned Court below considered the suit as a suit for damages on account of defamation and accepted the Court fee of Rs. 10/- without looking into the schedule of....2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action, as pleaded by the plaintiff occurred in 2008. That the Alipore Court did not have any...territorial jurisdiction in the matter as would be reflected from the pleadings. That the suit was mainly a money suit with a claim for damages on account of supply of inferior quality goods connected...

...the suit, in my considered opinion, is well within limitation. Furthermore, even though the suit for defamation maybe time barred but there is another...finding has been given by the learned Trial Court that for the purposes of computing limitation, the suit would be covered under Article 75 or under Article 101 or under Article 113 of the Schedule appended...which provides for a period of one year from the date of publication for a suit of defamation/liable. The other defense taken in the Application was that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to...

.... Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.1/Plaintiff had filed a suit for damages and compensation on account of defamation, mental agony and harassment and for mandatory injunction..."] has been filed by the Petitioner specifically setting out that the suit as filed is barred by Article 75 of the Limitation Act which provides for a period of one year from the date of publication...for a suit of defamation/liable. The other defense taken in the Application was that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to examine the plaint. 5.1 Learned Counsel...

...might have gone on for some time and a suit for defamation might finally have been barred by limitation. I find that no contempt of Court has been committed. The rule is, therefore, discharged. In the...civil suit is quite a different matter from a notice stating that a suit for defamation or libel will be brought. It was conceded that the opposite party would be within its rights in bringing a suit...complaint. This case is not such a good parallel to the present one where a demand was made not directly to withdraw the allegations but to apologize for them. In the present case the defamation suit, I...

...Articles 75 and 76 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and has contended that the limitation for a suit for compensation for libel or slander is one year from the date when the libel is published or from the date when words are spoken. It is contended that the claim for compensation for defamation was...permitted to be made at any time, even if barred by time.21. The senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that there is a difference in a claim for damages in a suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale and damages for defamation for which a special period of limitation has...of the suit for permanent injunction from which this petition arises, had instituted a suit for recovery for the same amount of damages for defamation and the plaint wherein was rejected as barred by...

...for defamation of Rs. 10 lacs arose on 04.11.96 when a defamatory press communiqué was issued by defendant which was widely printed in press media. Article 75 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit for...barred by limitation.2. The learned Trial Court has held that the period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation for libel is one year from the date of the publication of libel...under:Period of LimitationDescription of suitTime from which period begins to runFor compensation for libel.One year...

...suit, accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for. With regard to-the limitation, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff not only for defamation...Ex.A-1, the libel is published in the Daily Thanthi on 5.8.1976 The suit has been filed on 7.12.77 In other words, if the present suit is only for defamation, the suit filed on 7.12.77 is clearly barred by limitation as...”. She further contended that at any rate, the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation, and prays for interference in this appeal. On the other hand, Miss. B. Sivakamasundari...

...lapse of limitation period of one year. The suit for defamation with respect to the defamatory allegations in the notices is, therefore, barred by limitation. So far as question of reckoning the...grounds:-Firstly, that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. In support of this contention, counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit was filed by the...said notices is clearly barred under Article 75 of the Limitation Act which lays down that the limitation period for filing a compensation suit in the case of libel is one...

...-defendant.11. As regards the ground of limitation, no doubt, suit for seeking compensation for defamation is to be filed within one year of arising of cause of action but in this case, cause...compensation for damages to Rs. 50 lacs, requisite court fee had been deposited and it was further claimed that the suit was within limitation as also jurisdiction of the Mohali courts was there...2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 976 (P&H). It is claimed that limitation for a claim of defamation is only one year. Support has been sought from two judgments of this Court in Shavinder Singh v...

... was required to be dismissed for want of necessary parties. He has also argued that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly held that the suit was barred by limitation. In reply...act of defendant No.1. H Therefore, the findings of the learned Appellate Court that the suit was for defamation and the....136/1 of 1998. . 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to P the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for rec...

...emphasised in a criminal proceeding for defamation than in a civil action for damages. Nor do we think it is possible for an aggrieved person to wait until a criminal proceeding for defamation is finally concluded because by that time the civil suit for damages might well become barred by limitation. In...27th July, 1965. The Solicitor's notice for the Civil suit for damages for defamation was issued on the 16th August, 1965. No reply to the Solicitor's letter of demand was given by the petitioners.... The contempt rule was issued ex parte on the 20th September, 1965, but before it was served a civil suit for damages for defamation had been filed on the very next day, 21st September, 1965...

.... 26. Having determined that the Suit is one for defamation, the next question is which article of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the period of limitation. Articles 75 and 76 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are relevant and read as under: Description of Suit Period...District Judge erred in treating the suit as one for defamation, by selectively relying upon paragraphs 15 and 16 of the plaint, while ignoring the pleadings as a whole. It is contended that the Suit...question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned District Judge was correct in holding the suit, to be barred by limitation...

...liable to be rejected in terms of Article 75 of the Act, which states that any suit for defamation/libel is to be filed within a period of one year and the plaint was filed in the year 2014 on the basis of a complaint lodged in the year 2008, hence, way beyond the prescribed limitation period...appreciate that Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter "the Act") is the foundation for any suit seeking damages and there cannot be continuing cause of action as observed by the learned Trial.... 9. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per Article 75 of the Act, the limitation period to file a civil suit seeking damages for...

...for damages for defamation is barred by limitation. Therefore, the suit cannot be maintained before this Court and sought for revocation of leave.11. The plaintiff/appellant resisted the said...and revoked the leave holding that,(i) The suit is one for defamation simpliciter which has been filed after a period of one year limitation, hence, cannot be maintained;(ii) The defendants/respondents are outside Chennai and the suit is...113.Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule.Three years When the right to sue accrues.�The “defamation” refers...

...rejection of the plaint.2. The grounds articulated in the application are broadly as follows: First, that the suit filed which is a suit for defamation is barred by limitation. Second, the...and not institute a suit for defamation.2.1 I must also note that arguments were also advanced on behalf of defendant no. 6, 9 & 10, who have raised the very same assertions, though...stage, while dealing with the captioned applications is, the averments made in the plaint.3.1 Broadly, the suit for defamation has been filed against 10 defendants. Defendant no. 1 & 2...

...the said notice is invalid and has claimed injunction and other reliefs. A suit for declaration of this nature is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit has been filed claiming declaration within the period of limitation. Even if the plaintiff may not get damages for defamation, if..., 1963, the period of limitation for compensation for libel is one year from the date when the libel was published. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 5-4-2002. The plaintiff in para 16 of the...it is made and published. Publication would include a subsequent republication of the libellous matter and a suit will lie for every such publication. The starting point of limitation under...

...defendants state that to file a suit for defamation claiming damages, law of limitation prescribes a period of one year from the date of publication. The above alleged publication was dated 28.03.2012...given to the legal notice dated 6.4.2012 issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, this cannot be defamatory by any stretch of interpretation. Further, to file a suit for defamation claiming damages, law of limitation prescribes...either side, the following issues were framed for determination:- (1)Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (2...

...that the suit itself has been filed on 31st May, 2008 while as the period of limitation which is prescribed under the Limitation Act for the purpose of filing the suit for recovery on account of damages for defamation is only one year. If that be so, then on the face of it, the present suit is barred by limitation and...involvement. In nutshell, they have denied that there is any cause for defamation for initiating present suit.9. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, she has not denied the fact that...fact that the present suit for defamation is premature as the allegations which have been made by the plaintiff are yet to be examined by an appropriate forum, i.e Criminal Court. It is also stated...