Case between B.Unnikrishnan vs Santhivila Dinesh regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Case Summary

B.Unnikrishnan, a renowned director, has filed a suit against fellow director Santhivila Dinesh for publishing defamatory news that harmed his reputation. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won

Interim Order

The court decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining him from making any further defamatory publications about the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit.

Judgment Favored

Plaintiff

Relief Granted

Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from publishing defamatory news.

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

The court decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining him from making any further defamatory publications about the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.

Supporting Evidence

The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents would satisfactorily prove the plaint claim. So, a decree can rightly be passed as prayed for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed by a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading out or causing to publish, telecast or spread out any news or matters concerning the plaintiff and that will affects his goodwill and reputation.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: B.Unnikrishnan
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Santhivila Dinesh
Party Age: 62

Plaintiffs Documents

Pen drive contains the defamatory news item published by the defendant in the YouTube channel with certificate under section 65 B of the evidence Act, Transcript of the defamatory news item published by the defendant in his YouTube channel.

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Mohammed Ziyad
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction

Outcome: Granted

Description:

Restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading any news or matters concerning the plaintiff that affects his goodwill and reputation.

Evidence:

The suit is decreed by a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from publishing or spreading out or causing to publish, telecast or spread out any news or matters concerning the plaintiff and that will affects his goodwill and reputation.

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Granted

Description:

Plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Evidence:

The plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Pen Drive

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Contains the defamatory news item published by the defendant in the YouTube channel with certificate under section 65 B of the Evidence Act.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Transcript

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Transcript of the defamatory news item published by the defendant in his YouTube channel.