1.

whether the defendant proves that it has suffered damages on account of the
tweet of the plaintiffs

Every man is authorized to his reputation. A man’s identity is his reputation,

and his respecting the society Reputation should never be decided on opinion
basis. Every person has a unique character and his reputation is his property.
Reputation is a certificate of one’s character by society and other individuals.
In this article, we would like to explain when defamatory words, gestures or
actions by an individual turns into defamation and then what it costs.

Defamation under tort law is considered, as a general rule, the focus is on libel (i.e.,
written Defamation) and not on slander (i.e., spoken defamation). To build up that a
statement is libelous it must be proved as

1. False,
2. Written,
3. Defamatory,
4. Published.

An intriguing part of defamation as a tort is that it is only wrong if the defamation is of

nature which hurts the reputation of an individual who is alive. As a rule, this means
saying that it’s not a tort to defame a deceased individual. In case of a doubt, the
plaintiff should have the option to prove that the defamatory words were referred.

Notwithstanding, this doesn’t imply that there can be no cause of action if a dead
individual is defamed — if, for instance, a defamatory statement adversely impacts
the reputation of a deceased individual’s heir, an action for defamation would be
maintainable. Further, if an activity for defamation is instituted, and defamation is
found to have been committed, damages will be payable to the offended party/
plaintiff. Also, an individual feels an apprehension of being defamed in a publication
may seek the grant of an injunction to control such publication. In any case, the pre-
publication injunction is rarely allowed as Indian courts have tended to follow the
guideline set down in 1891.

The tweet which was generated by the plaintiff had gained a lot of sympathy to which the
share price of Tony fell by almost 17% and the TRp’s of the shows too dropped
drastically. In the light of negative publicity,two sensors of Big Eyes too backed out of
project.
 In the case of Rajkot Municial Cororation v. Manjublen J.Nakum1, the corporation was
not held liable to be sued for the for the tort of Negligence since the causation was too
remote.
Novus actus inconveniens snaps the link and therefore ,it is difficult to establish lack of
care resulting in the damage and foreseeability of the damages.

1 (1997)1 SCR 304:(1997) 9 SCC 552