Amber Heard took the witness stand in Johnny Depp’s defamation case against her. After bursting into tears, she alleged that her ex-husband Johnny Depp had turned violent against her.

Amber Heard tearfully testifies about Johnny Depp's alleged abuse, drug use

Johnny Depp is suing his ex-wife Amber Heard for $50 million. Here are some shocking accusations made during the case. The case is currently ongoing in the US.

Johnny Depp, Amber Heard case: Shocking accusations about actors

An Australian news channel had wrongly identified an&nbsp;Aboriginal&nbsp;man as the primary suspect in the abduction of Cleo Smith.

Now, it is paying the price of incorrect broadcast as the man has filed a defamation case against the new channel.

The channel had taken pictures from his Facebook account and used them without his consent and displayed them with the caption ''Pictured: The man accused of abducting Cleo Smith.''

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cleo-smith-four-year-old-australian-girl-abducted-from-campsite-found-alive-426294">Also read |&nbsp;Cleo Smith: Four-year-old Australian girl abducted from campsite found alive</a>

His lawyer said ''The publications by the Seven Network led to Terrance Flowers being made the subject of hate around the nation and the world and resulted in him being hospitalised with a severe panic attack.''

''It is of great concern to Mr Flowers and his family that a major media company would proceed with a story of this magnitude without being absolutely certain as to its accuracy. The effect of this substantial error has been devastating.''

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-36-year-old-man-charged-for-abduction-of-cleo-smith-426634">Also read |&nbsp;Australia: 36-year-old man charged for abduction of Cleo Smith</a>

After facing rebuke, the channel has now issued an apology he ''was in no way connected with Cleo's abduction and his Facebook photos should not have been used.''

A 36-year-old man named Terrence Kelly has been charged with the abduction of four-year-old who had disappeared from her family's tent in Western Australia.

He has been charged with various offences, including one count of forcibly taking a child under 16 and sent to a maximum-security prison in Perth.

Many had feared the search for Cleo Smith would end in tragedy, but the discovery of her "alive and well" sparked nationwide elation, with police admitting "seasoned detectives" were "openly crying with relief".

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

An Australian news channel had wrongly identified an Aboriginal man as the primary suspect in the abduction of Cleo Smith. Now, it is paying the price of incorrect broadcast as the man has filed a defamation case against the new channel.

An Australian news channel had wrongly identified an Aboriginal man as the primary suspect in the abduction of Cleo Smith. Now, it is paying the price of incorrect broadcast as the man has filed a defamation case against the new channel. The channel had taken pictures from his Facebook account and used them without his consent and displayed them with the caption ''Pictured: The man accused of abducting Cleo Smith.'' Also read | Cleo Smith: Four-year-old Australian girl abducted from campsite found alive His lawyer said ''The publications by the Seven Network led to Terrance Flowers being made the subject of hate around the nation and the world and resulted in him being hospitalised with a severe panic attack.'' ''It is of great concern to Mr Flowers and his family that a major media company would proceed with a story of this magnitude without being absolutely certain as to its accuracy. The effect of this substantial error has been devastating.'' Also read | Australia: 36-year-old man charged for abduction of Cleo Smith After facing rebuke, the channel has now issued an apology he ''was in no way connected with Cleo's abduction and his Facebook photos should not have been used.'' A 36-year-old man named Terrence Kelly has been charged with the abduction of four-year-old who had disappeared from her family's tent in Western Australia. He has been charged with various offences, including one count of forcibly taking a child under 16 and sent to a maximum-security prison in Perth. Many had feared the search for Cleo Smith would end in tragedy, but the discovery of her "alive and well" sparked nationwide elation, with police admitting "seasoned detectives" were "openly crying with relief". (With inputs from agencies)

Wrong suspect in Cleo Smith's abduction files defamation case against news channel

The Singapore high court has ordered a blogger to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong S$133,000 ($98,825) in damages in a defamation case filed by the city-state`s leader, according to a judgment released on Wednesday.

Lee had sued Leong Sze Hian, a financial advisor, after he shared on Facebook an online news article that linked the premier to a financial scandal at Malaysia`s state fund 1MBD.

Lee`s lawyers have said such links were "false and baseless". Leong had deleted the November 2018 Facebook post within three days of sharing it, complying with a government request.

Judge Aedit Abdullah in his decision said he did not find that Leong "can reasonably claim that the defamatory words did not impugn" Lee`s character as the article had suggested that the premier was, at the very least, involved in serious and dishonest criminal activity.

A total of 45 people responded to Leong`s post, for which the privacy settings were set to public, said the judge.

Leong had previously said he "merely shared" an article from a Malaysian online news site without adding any comments or changing the content.

The prime minister`s press secretary said the matter has been decided by the judge and Lee has nothing further to add.

Leong said he was glad his ordeal was over, but he was disappointed. He said he would seek legal advice over the judgment, as well as listen to views of other Singaporeans.

As the head of a government that has pledged zero tolerance of corruption, Lee, 69, is no stranger to seeking to protect his reputation via legal channels.

Senior figures in the ruling People`s Action Party, including Lee`s late father and the founder of modern-day Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, have previously sued foreign media, political opponents and online commentators for defamation.

The Singapore high court has ordered a blogger to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong S$133,000 ($98,825) in damages in a defamation case filed by the city-state`s leader, according to a judgment released on Wednesday.

The Singapore high court has ordered a blogger to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong S$133,000 ($98,825) in damages in a defamation case filed by the city-state`s leader, according to a judgment released on Wednesday. Lee had sued Leong Sze Hian, a financial advisor, after he shared on Facebook an online news article that linked the premier to a financial scandal at Malaysia`s state fund 1MBD. Lee`s lawyers have said such links were "false and baseless". Leong had deleted the November 2018 Facebook post within three days of sharing it, complying with a government request. Judge Aedit Abdullah in his decision said he did not find that Leong "can reasonably claim that the defamatory words did not impugn" Lee`s character as the article had suggested that the premier was, at the very least, involved in serious and dishonest criminal activity. A total of 45 people responded to Leong`s post, for which the privacy settings were set to public, said the judge. Leong had previously said he "merely shared" an article from a Malaysian online news site without adding any comments or changing the content. The prime minister`s press secretary said the matter has been decided by the judge and Lee has nothing further to add. Leong said he was glad his ordeal was over, but he was disappointed. He said he would seek legal advice over the judgment, as well as listen to views of other Singaporeans. As the head of a government that has pledged zero tolerance of corruption, Lee, 69, is no stranger to seeking to protect his reputation via legal channels. Senior figures in the ruling People`s Action Party, including Lee`s late father and the founder of modern-day Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, have previously sued foreign media, political opponents and online commentators for defamation.

Singapore court orders blogger to pay PM $99,000 in defamation case

Pakistan`s opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif has appealed to a sessions court, hearing his defamation suit against Prime Minister Imran Khan, to conduct daily hearings.

In a tweet on Saturday, Sharif alleged that he filed the defamation case against Khan for "his blatant lies of offering him Rs 10 billion".

"In a defamation case that I filed against Imran Khan for his blatant lies of offering him Rs 10 billion, he has sought 33 deferments so far. I have petitioned the court to hear the case on daily basis. IK failed to submit his written reply to the court despite the passage of three years," he wrote.

Sharif had filed a Rs 10 billion defamation suit against Khan in 2017.

The petition, filed under Sections 4 and 9 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, said that Imran falsely accused Sharif of making him a financial offer for his "silence over the Panama Papers case", Geo News reported.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/prime-suspect-in-gang-rape-of-pak-woman-identified-327102">Also read:&nbsp;Prime suspect in gang rape of Pak woman identified</a>

It stated that "the facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the instant suit are that since the last week of April 2017, the Defendant (Imran Khan) started uttering, spreading and resorting to the publication, communication and circulation of maliciously false, baseless and unfounded oral statements and representations against the plaintiff (Shehbaz)."

According to the suit, Khan claimed that Sharif "offered to pay a sum of (Rs 10 billion) to the defendant in exchange for his withdrawing/backing-off from, or remaining silent on the issue of the Panama Papers` case.

"In April 2017, Khan had alleged that he had been made an offer in the Panama case. He made the comments while addressing a gathering at Shaukat Khanum Hospital in Lahore.

"Just imagine how much money he offered me to be silent -- Rs10 billion! If he can offer me this much money, just imagine how much he could offer to others. That is why if we do not maintain public pressure on this issue, then after two months it will be dragged to the next year," Khan was quoted by Geo News as saying.

In an interview after making the comments, Khan did not disclose the name of the person who made the offer, but said the individual was close to the Punjab Chief Minister.Sharif had served as Punjab Chief Minister from 2013 to 2018.

Pakistan`s opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif has appealed to a sessions court, hearing his defamation suit against Prime Minister Imran Khan, to conduct daily hearings.

Pakistan`s opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif has appealed to a sessions court, hearing his defamation suit against Prime Minister Imran Khan, to conduct daily hearings. In a tweet on Saturday, Sharif alleged that he filed the defamation case against Khan for "his blatant lies of offering him Rs 10 billion". "In a defamation case that I filed against Imran Khan for his blatant lies of offering him Rs 10 billion, he has sought 33 deferments so far. I have petitioned the court to hear the case on daily basis. IK failed to submit his written reply to the court despite the passage of three years," he wrote. Sharif had filed a Rs 10 billion defamation suit against Khan in 2017. The petition, filed under Sections 4 and 9 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, said that Imran falsely accused Sharif of making him a financial offer for his "silence over the Panama Papers case", Geo News reported. Also read: Prime suspect in gang rape of Pak woman identified It stated that "the facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the instant suit are that since the last week of April 2017, the Defendant (Imran Khan) started uttering, spreading and resorting to the publication, communication and circulation of maliciously false, baseless and unfounded oral statements and representations against the plaintiff (Shehbaz)." According to the suit, Khan claimed that Sharif "offered to pay a sum of (Rs 10 billion) to the defendant in exchange for his withdrawing/backing-off from, or remaining silent on the issue of the Panama Papers` case. "In April 2017, Khan had alleged that he had been made an offer in the Panama case. He made the comments while addressing a gathering at Shaukat Khanum Hospital in Lahore. "Just imagine how much money he offered me to be silent -- Rs10 billion! If he can offer me this much money, just imagine how much he could offer to others. That is why if we do not maintain public pressure on this issue, then after two months it will be dragged to the next year," Khan was quoted by Geo News as saying. In an interview after making the comments, Khan did not disclose the name of the person who made the offer, but said the individual was close to the Punjab Chief Minister.Sharif had served as Punjab Chief Minister from 2013 to 2018.

Pak opposition leader moves court seeking daily hearings in defamation case against Imran Khan

A Pakistani journalist who has been a vocal critic of the military, government, and religious extremist groups, has been arrested on charges of defaming the country`s powerful army and spreading religious hatred, police said on Friday.

"Through his (social media) posts, Bilal Farooqi defamed the Pakistan Army and anti-state elements used these posts for their vested interests," said a police report seen by Reuters, which added that his online activity also spread religious hatred and incited mutiny against the military.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/culture-of-violence-in-pakistan-india-at-un-326744">Also read|&nbsp;‘Culture of violence’ in Pakistan: India at UN</a>

Farooqi's arrest is the latest in a spate of such moves against journalists who have been critical of the government and comes days after Prime Minister Imran Khan reiterated that Pakistan has a free media.

Farooqi has now been released by the Pakistani government after huge&nbsp;criticism.

In July, another journalist, Matiullah Jan, also a critic of Pakistan`s military and government, was freed hours after being abducted after his disappearance sparked outcry amongst journalists and rights activists.

No explanation was given for Jan's abduction.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/paks-watershed-moment-two-horrific-rapes-and-social-media-outrage-326949">Also read|&nbsp;Pak's watershed moment: Two horrific rapes and social media outrage</a>

In the case of Farooqi, police cited the country`s cyber crime law, which critics say contains vague language that can be used to criminalise basic online activities with fines and long-term imprisonment.

Online criticism of religion, the country, its courts and armed forces are among subjects attracting prosecution.

Earlier this week, a former journalist returned home days after disappearing from Islamabad. He has given no details about what happened to him.

Farooqi had written a tweet about the man`s "enforced disappearance," saying: "The powerful are above the law in this country."

Last year, journalist Shahzeb Jilani was charged under laws relating to cyber terrorism, hate speech, electronic fraud, incitement, and defamation, but the case was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence.

At least four journalists and bloggers have been killed in connection with their reporting in the last year in Pakistan.

Earlier this week, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed increasing concern at instances of incitement to violence against journalists and human rights defenders.

"We have raised our concerns directly with the government and we have urged immediate, concrete steps to ensure the protection of journalists and human rights defenders who have been subjected to threats," UNHCR said in a statement.

A Pakistani journalist who has been a vocal critic of the military, government, and religious extremist groups, has been arrested on charges of defaming the country`s powerful army and spreading religious hatred, police said on Friday.

A Pakistani journalist who has been a vocal critic of the military, government, and religious extremist groups, has been arrested on charges of defaming the country`s powerful army and spreading religious hatred, police said on Friday. "Through his (social media) posts, Bilal Farooqi defamed the Pakistan Army and anti-state elements used these posts for their vested interests," said a police report seen by Reuters, which added that his online activity also spread religious hatred and incited mutiny against the military. Also read| ‘Culture of violence’ in Pakistan: India at UN Farooqi's arrest is the latest in a spate of such moves against journalists who have been critical of the government and comes days after Prime Minister Imran Khan reiterated that Pakistan has a free media. Farooqi has now been released by the Pakistani government after huge criticism. In July, another journalist, Matiullah Jan, also a critic of Pakistan`s military and government, was freed hours after being abducted after his disappearance sparked outcry amongst journalists and rights activists. No explanation was given for Jan's abduction. Also read| Pak's watershed moment: Two horrific rapes and social media outrage In the case of Farooqi, police cited the country`s cyber crime law, which critics say contains vague language that can be used to criminalise basic online activities with fines and long-term imprisonment. Online criticism of religion, the country, its courts and armed forces are among subjects attracting prosecution. Earlier this week, a former journalist returned home days after disappearing from Islamabad. He has given no details about what happened to him. Farooqi had written a tweet about the man`s "enforced disappearance," saying: "The powerful are above the law in this country." Last year, journalist Shahzeb Jilani was charged under laws relating to cyber terrorism, hate speech, electronic fraud, incitement, and defamation, but the case was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. At least four journalists and bloggers have been killed in connection with their reporting in the last year in Pakistan. Earlier this week, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed increasing concern at instances of incitement to violence against journalists and human rights defenders. "We have raised our concerns directly with the government and we have urged immediate, concrete steps to ensure the protection of journalists and human rights defenders who have been subjected to threats," UNHCR said in a statement.

Pakistani journalist,arrested for defaming military, released

A Special Court in Delhi on Tuesday granted bail to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/court-summons-arvind-kejriwal-manish-sisodia-in-defamation-suit-filed-by-bjps-vijender-gupta-234089">Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal</a> and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with a defamation suit filed by Delhi BJP leader Vijender Gupta.

According to the court, the two Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders will furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 each.

The next date of hearing in the defamation case has been scheduled for July 25.

Gupta had filed the suit against Kejriwal and Sisodia for allegedly "maligning" his image after they accused him of being part of an alleged "conspiracy" to kill the AAP chief by his own Personal Security Officer (PSO) in the manner in which Indira Gandhi was killed.

He had said that he was "deeply hurt by the defamatory and false allegations made by both the accused persons".

The BJP MLA claimed that the false allegations were made to impact the Lok Sabha elections in Punjab which were held in the last phase.

The defamation suit has been filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for "willfully, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously" defaming the complainant, "on wholly and completely false, frivolous, unjustifiable and scandalous grounds and thereby, harming the goodwill and reputation of the complainant, within the political fraternity, media, friends, family, colleagues and in society at large."

Gupta has also alleged that in the recent past, in order to make political gains, Kejriwal allegedly scripted the slap-gate during a road-show in the capital city on May 5.&nbsp;

AAP had blamed the BJP for the incident.

He has also alleged that Kejriwal and Sisodia have made several tweets with baseless allegations against him.

"While Kejriwal`s tweet was retweeted 3,194 times and that of Sisodia`s was re-tweeted 1,301 times. Not only that.&nbsp;

Twitter being a public platform, it might have reached and read by so many other people in and outside Delhi," Gupta said.

A Special Court in Delhi on Tuesday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with a defamation suit filed by Delhi BJP leader Vijender Gupta.

A Special Court in Delhi on Tuesday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with a defamation suit filed by Delhi BJP leader Vijender Gupta. According to the court, the two Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders will furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 each. The next date of hearing in the defamation case has been scheduled for July 25. Gupta had filed the suit against Kejriwal and Sisodia for allegedly "maligning" his image after they accused him of being part of an alleged "conspiracy" to kill the AAP chief by his own Personal Security Officer (PSO) in the manner in which Indira Gandhi was killed. He had said that he was "deeply hurt by the defamatory and false allegations made by both the accused persons". The BJP MLA claimed that the false allegations were made to impact the Lok Sabha elections in Punjab which were held in the last phase. The defamation suit has been filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for "willfully, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously" defaming the complainant, "on wholly and completely false, frivolous, unjustifiable and scandalous grounds and thereby, harming the goodwill and reputation of the complainant, within the political fraternity, media, friends, family, colleagues and in society at large." Gupta has also alleged that in the recent past, in order to make political gains, Kejriwal allegedly scripted the slap-gate during a road-show in the capital city on May 5. AAP had blamed the BJP for the incident. He has also alleged that Kejriwal and Sisodia have made several tweets with baseless allegations against him. "While Kejriwal`s tweet was retweeted 3,194 times and that of Sisodia`s was re-tweeted 1,301 times. Not only that. Twitter being a public platform, it might have reached and read by so many other people in and outside Delhi," Gupta said.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia get bail in defamation suit filed by BJP's Vijender Gupta

The Metropolitan Court here on Friday granted bail to <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-jds-alliance-going-strong-despite-efforts-to-destabilise-kumaraswamy-235169&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiYn5j2ta_jAhWJaCsKHbwZB-QQFjAAegQIARAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZkjNUdt89h4W1Ee09jN6I">Congress</a> president <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/it-feels-like-coming-home-says-rahul-gandhi-on-his-first-visit-to-amethi-after-lok-sabha-elections-234731">Rahul Gandhi</a> in connection with a criminal defamation suit filed against him by Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank and its chairman Ajay Patel.

Rahul arrived at the Court to appear in connection with the case.

Earlier in the day, Congress leader had informed through a tweet that he would be appearing in another <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rss-defamation-case-rahul-gandhi-pleads-not-guilty-232947&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjYstyztq_jAhXTfCsKHT5KDXAQFjACegQIAhAC&amp;usg=AOvVaw0_ph_LmpPiyLaitcOhnMtC">case filed against him by his "political opponents in the RSS and BJP</a>."

"I am in Ahmedabad today, to appear in another case filed against me by my political opponents in the RSS/BJP.&nbsp;

I thank them for providing me with these platforms and opportunities to take my ideological battle against them to the public.&nbsp;

Satyameva Jayate," he said in the tweet.

Last year in August, two separate criminal defamation cases were filed against Rahul and party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala for their remark that Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank (ADCB) had exchanged Rs 745.58 crore in just five days during demonetisation.

"Within a mere five days of the implementation of the demonetisation drive, old denominations worth Rs 3,118 crore were deposited in 11 district corporative banks that had links to the BJP leaders.&nbsp;

The most noteworthy of them was Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, whose directors include BJP president Amit Shah," Surjewala had said.

He had further said that the bank, which is chaired by Ajay Patel, a close associate of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, received Rs 745.58 crore from November 10 to November 14.&nbsp;

Before appearing in connection with the criminal defamation suit, Rahul also visited Swathi restaurant in Ahmedabad where he was seen interacting with people and clicking selfies with them.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Metropolitan Court here on Friday granted bail to Congress president Rahul Gandhi in connection with a criminal defamation suit filed against him by Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank and its chairman Ajay Patel.

The Metropolitan Court here on Friday granted bail to Congress president Rahul Gandhi in connection with a criminal defamation suit filed against him by Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank and its chairman Ajay Patel. Rahul arrived at the Court to appear in connection with the case. Earlier in the day, Congress leader had informed through a tweet that he would be appearing in another case filed against him by his "political opponents in the RSS and BJP." "I am in Ahmedabad today, to appear in another case filed against me by my political opponents in the RSS/BJP. I thank them for providing me with these platforms and opportunities to take my ideological battle against them to the public. Satyameva Jayate," he said in the tweet. Last year in August, two separate criminal defamation cases were filed against Rahul and party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala for their remark that Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank (ADCB) had exchanged Rs 745.58 crore in just five days during demonetisation. "Within a mere five days of the implementation of the demonetisation drive, old denominations worth Rs 3,118 crore were deposited in 11 district corporative banks that had links to the BJP leaders. The most noteworthy of them was Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, whose directors include BJP president Amit Shah," Surjewala had said. He had further said that the bank, which is chaired by Ajay Patel, a close associate of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, received Rs 745.58 crore from November 10 to November 14. Before appearing in connection with the criminal defamation suit, Rahul also visited Swathi restaurant in Ahmedabad where he was seen interacting with people and clicking selfies with them.

Ahmedabad Court grants bail to Rahul Gandhi in criminal defamation case

A Delhi court Friday granted bail to AAP leaders Atishi and others in a defamation case filed by the BJP against them for their remarks over deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls in the city.

AAP's Rajya Sabha member Sushil Kumar Gupta, MLA Manoj Kumar were also granted relief on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each after the three appeared before the court.

However, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal failed to appear before the court Friday. The court directed him to appear on July 16.

BJP leader Rajeev Babbar, who moved the petition on behalf of the party's Delhi unit, sought proceedings against them for "harming" the reputation of the BJP by blaming it for the deletion of the names of "voters" from electoral rolls here.

He claimed the AAP leaders had, during a press conference held in December last year, alleged that on the directions of the BJP names of 30 lakh voters from Bania, Poorvanchali and the Muslim community had been deleted by the Election Commission.

A Delhi court Friday granted bail to AAP leaders Atishi and others in a defamation case filed by the BJP against them for their remarks over deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls in the city.

A Delhi court Friday granted bail to AAP leaders Atishi and others in a defamation case filed by the BJP against them for their remarks over deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls in the city. AAP's Rajya Sabha member Sushil Kumar Gupta, MLA Manoj Kumar were also granted relief on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 each after the three appeared before the court. However, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal failed to appear before the court Friday. The court directed him to appear on July 16. BJP leader Rajeev Babbar, who moved the petition on behalf of the party's Delhi unit, sought proceedings against them for "harming" the reputation of the BJP by blaming it for the deletion of the names of "voters" from electoral rolls here. He claimed the AAP leaders had, during a press conference held in December last year, alleged that on the directions of the BJP names of 30 lakh voters from Bania, Poorvanchali and the Muslim community had been deleted by the Election Commission.

Delhi court grants bail to Atishi, other AAP leaders in defamation case

A special MP-MLA court on Saturday reserved its order till July 10 on the issuance of summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation complaint filed by a BJP leader.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Samar Vishal was hearing a petition filed by BJP legal cell convenor Rajesh Kumar against Kejriwal for posting a tweet on September 30 last year, accusing BJP workers of raping Hindu girls.

Kumar in his plea had requested the court to issue summons to Kejriwal on the charges of defamation and promoting enmity between different groups.

In the last hearing on May 16, the court had recorded the statement of Kumar and two other witnesses in connection with this case.

In his petition, Kumar had submitted that he was shocked and surprised after seeing a tweet in which Kejriwal had allegedly said that "BJP members keep roaming and raping Hindu girls around the country."

"Mr. Kejriwal has successfully dented the reputation of the complainant in particular and his party," the complaint, moved through counsel Saurabh Kansal, had stated.

Kumar said that he wanted to file a complaint immediately but he thought the people have a better sense of judgment and no one will take the tweet seriously.

"The tweet has caused embarrassment to the complainant on several occasions as some people in small social gatherings raise the issue to tease him," the complaint had said.

"The tweet has not only caused defamation to the complainant but to crores of members of BJP and the accused cannot be permitted to let go for such an offence," it contended.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

A special MP-MLA court on Saturday reserved its order till July 10 on the issuance of summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation complaint filed by a BJP leader.

A special MP-MLA court on Saturday reserved its order till July 10 on the issuance of summons to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation complaint filed by a BJP leader. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Samar Vishal was hearing a petition filed by BJP legal cell convenor Rajesh Kumar against Kejriwal for posting a tweet on September 30 last year, accusing BJP workers of raping Hindu girls. Kumar in his plea had requested the court to issue summons to Kejriwal on the charges of defamation and promoting enmity between different groups. In the last hearing on May 16, the court had recorded the statement of Kumar and two other witnesses in connection with this case. In his petition, Kumar had submitted that he was shocked and surprised after seeing a tweet in which Kejriwal had allegedly said that "BJP members keep roaming and raping Hindu girls around the country." "Mr. Kejriwal has successfully dented the reputation of the complainant in particular and his party," the complaint, moved through counsel Saurabh Kansal, had stated. Kumar said that he wanted to file a complaint immediately but he thought the people have a better sense of judgment and no one will take the tweet seriously. "The tweet has caused embarrassment to the complainant on several occasions as some people in small social gatherings raise the issue to tease him," the complaint had said. "The tweet has not only caused defamation to the complainant but to crores of members of BJP and the accused cannot be permitted to let go for such an offence," it contended.

Court reserves order on issuance of summons to Kejriwal in defamation case

A Patna Court on Saturday summoned Congress president Rahul Gandhi to appear before it on May 20, in connection with a defamation suit filed against him by Bihar deputy chief minister and BJP leader Sushil Modi.

The summon was issued to the Congress president in response to the allegations made by the deputy chief minister, who had taken exception to Mr Gandhi's remark "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/criminal-complaint-filed-against-rahul-gandhi-for-making-allegedly-derogatory-remarks-on-pm-modi-211455">all thieves have the surname Modi</a>" at a political rally.

The Congress president had made the remarks in Kollar district of Karnataka seeking to underscore the alleged laxity of the Narendra Modi government in pursuing corruption cases against diamantaire Nirav Modi and former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, both of whom have fled the country.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/case-filed-against-rahul-gandhi-tejashwi-yadav-for-asking-crowd-to-raise-chowkidar-chor-hai-slogan-213931">Case filed against Rahul Gandhi, Tejashwi Yadav for asking crowd to raise 'chowkidar chor hai' slogan</a>

Addressing a rally in Maharashtra's Nanded on April 15, Rahul had again targetted 'Modi ' and said how come all "thieves" have Modi as the common surname.

"But tell me one thing...Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi...how come they all have Modi as a common name. How come all the thieves have Modi as the common name?" Gandhi had said.&nbsp;

The Bihar deputy chief minister on Friday appeared before the court alleging that since he shared the same surname, he felt humiliated and ridiculed by the Congress chief's remark and that it was tantamount to defamation.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Shashikant Roy, while transferring the matter for further hearing to the court of additional CJM Kumar Gunjan, directed Rahul Gandhi to appear in person on the next date of hearing on May 20.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Patna Court on Saturday summoned Congress president Rahul Gandhi to appear before it on May 20, in connection with a defamation suit filed against him by Bihar deputy chief minister and BJP leader Sushil Modi.

A Patna Court on Saturday summoned Congress president Rahul Gandhi to appear before it on May 20, in connection with a defamation suit filed against him by Bihar deputy chief minister and BJP leader Sushil Modi. The summon was issued to the Congress president in response to the allegations made by the deputy chief minister, who had taken exception to Mr Gandhi's remark "all thieves have the surname Modi" at a political rally. The Congress president had made the remarks in Kollar district of Karnataka seeking to underscore the alleged laxity of the Narendra Modi government in pursuing corruption cases against diamantaire Nirav Modi and former IPL commissioner Lalit Modi, both of whom have fled the country. Also read: Case filed against Rahul Gandhi, Tejashwi Yadav for asking crowd to raise 'chowkidar chor hai' slogan Addressing a rally in Maharashtra's Nanded on April 15, Rahul had again targetted 'Modi ' and said how come all "thieves" have Modi as the common surname. "But tell me one thing...Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi...how come they all have Modi as a common name. How come all the thieves have Modi as the common name?" Gandhi had said. The Bihar deputy chief minister on Friday appeared before the court alleging that since he shared the same surname, he felt humiliated and ridiculed by the Congress chief's remark and that it was tantamount to defamation. Chief Judicial Magistrate Shashikant Roy, while transferring the matter for further hearing to the court of additional CJM Kumar Gunjan, directed Rahul Gandhi to appear in person on the next date of hearing on May 20. (With inputs from agencies)

Bihar court issues summons to Rahul Gandhi in defamation case

Lashing out at Congress chief over his comment “all thieves have Modi in their surnames”, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi Tuesday announced that he'll file a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi. Watch this video to know more.

India Election Watch: Sushil Modi to file defamation case against Rahul Gandhi

Delhi's Patiala House Court on Monday granted bail to journalist Priya Ramani in the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him. &nbsp;

According to reports, Ramani was granted bail on a personal bail bond of Rs 10,000. The court will hear the matter next on March 8.&nbsp;

Journalist Priya Ramani, the first woman to accuse Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement, appeared before the Patiala House Court today.

After the court proceedings, Ramani spoke to media and said that the truth is in her defence.&nbsp;

"The next date when they will frame the charges against me is April 10. After that it will be my turn to tell my story. The truth is my defence," she said.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi's Patiala House Court grants bail to journalist Priya Ramani on a personal bail bond of Rs 10,000. Next date of hearing is 8 March. <a href="https://t.co/nOgqS9Bg6G">https://t.co/nOgqS9Bg6G</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1099892031986548736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Ramani was summoned as an accused in the case filed by Akbar against her on January 29.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Journalist Priya Ramani after being granted bail by Patiala House Court in connection with criminal defamation complaint by MJ Akbar: The next date when they will frame the charges against me is April 10. After that it will be my turn to tell my story. The truth is my defence. <a href="https://t.co/mxRadNVYua">pic.twitter.com/mxRadNVYua</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1099897733043884032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On January 11, three more witnesses in the case recorded their statements in the court. In total, seven people (including Akbar) have recorded their statements in the criminal defamation complaint, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Akbar resigned as the Minister of State for External Affairs in October 2018 after Ramani and other women accused him of sexual harassment.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

Delhi's Patiala House Court on Monday granted bail to journalist Priya Ramani in the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him.

Delhi's Patiala House Court on Monday granted bail to journalist Priya Ramani in the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him. According to reports, Ramani was granted bail on a personal bail bond of Rs 10,000. The court will hear the matter next on March 8. Journalist Priya Ramani, the first woman to accuse Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement, appeared before the Patiala House Court today. After the court proceedings, Ramani spoke to media and said that the truth is in her defence. "The next date when they will frame the charges against me is April 10. After that it will be my turn to tell my story. The truth is my defence," she said. Delhi's Patiala House Court grants bail to journalist Priya Ramani on a personal bail bond of Rs 10,000. Next date of hearing is 8 March. https://t.co/nOgqS9Bg6G — ANI (@ANI) February 25, 2019 × Ramani was summoned as an accused in the case filed by Akbar against her on January 29. Journalist Priya Ramani after being granted bail by Patiala House Court in connection with criminal defamation complaint by MJ Akbar: The next date when they will frame the charges against me is April 10. After that it will be my turn to tell my story. The truth is my defence. pic.twitter.com/mxRadNVYua — ANI (@ANI) February 25, 2019 × On January 11, three more witnesses in the case recorded their statements in the court. In total, seven people (including Akbar) have recorded their statements in the criminal defamation complaint, news agency ANI reported. Akbar resigned as the Minister of State for External Affairs in October 2018 after Ramani and other women accused him of sexual harassment. (With inputs from ANI)

MJ Akbar defamation case: Delhi court grants bail to accused journalist Priya Ramani, next hearing on March 8

A Delhi court on Monday began hearing the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mj-akbars-defamation-case-delhi-court-summons-priya-ramani-193673">defamation case</a> filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him.&nbsp;

Journalist Priya Ramani, the first woman to accuse Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement, appeared before the Patiala House Court today.

Ramani was summoned as an accused in the case filed by Akbar against her on January 29.&nbsp;

On January 11, three more witnesses in the case recorded their statements in the court. In total, seven people (including Akbar) have recorded their statements in the criminal defamation complaint, news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Akbar resigned as the Minister of State for External Affairs in October 2018 after Ramani and other women accused him of sexual harassment.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

A Delhi court on Monday began hearing the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him. Journalist Priya Ramani, the first woman to accuse Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement, appeared before the Patiala House Court today.

A Delhi court on Monday began hearing the defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar over allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him. Journalist Priya Ramani, the first woman to accuse Akbar of sexual harassment during the #MeToo movement, appeared before the Patiala House Court today. Ramani was summoned as an accused in the case filed by Akbar against her on January 29. On January 11, three more witnesses in the case recorded their statements in the court. In total, seven people (including Akbar) have recorded their statements in the criminal defamation complaint, news agency ANI reported. Akbar resigned as the Minister of State for External Affairs in October 2018 after Ramani and other women accused him of sexual harassment. (With inputs from ANI)

MJ Akbar defamation: Delhi Court hears case against journalist Priya Ramani

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday.

The Columbus vice unit officers who arrested Daniels on July 12, 2018, were registered Republicans as is the president, Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in her lawsuit filed in federal court in Ohio.

"Defendant officers believed that Ms Clifford was damaging President Trump and they thereafter entered into a conspiracy to arrest her during her performance in Columbus in retaliation for the public statements she had made regarding (Trump)," the suit said.

The legal action against the officers could bring to light further details about the circumstances of Daniels arrest, which made headlines at the time.

Columbus police had accused Daniels of committing a misdemeanour sex offence while performing at the club Sirens by touching three customers who were undercover vice detectives.

The charge was dropped hours later. Daniels had committed no crime because she did not perform regularly at the club, as required under the law, a city attorney said at the time.

The Columbus Division of Police launched an internal investigation soon after the incident.

"The Columbus Division of Police internal affairs bureau continues its investigation, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this matter at this time," the division said in a statement about the lawsuit.

The division, in Ohio's state capital, was not named as a defendant in Daniels` lawsuit, which accused the officers of violating her civil rights.

A representative for the police union for the officers could not immediately be reached for comment.

Daniels sued Trump for defamation in March 2018, before her arrest, and was seeking release from a non-disclosure agreement she signed before the 2016 presidential election to remain silent about the affair she said she had with Trump.

Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels, saying she was paid to stop "false and extortionist accusations."

A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Daniels` defamation lawsuit last year.

Daniels` attorney, Michael Avenatti, has described her arrest as a politically motivated set-up since the day it happened.

"Here in America, unlike in Russia, we don`t arrest citizens for political purposes in order to silence them," Avenatti said in a statement on Monday.

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday.

Ohio police officers were politically motivated when they arrested Stormy Daniels, the porn star who has described having an affair with President Donald Trump, at a strip club last year, the actress said in a lawsuit on Monday. The Columbus vice unit officers who arrested Daniels on July 12, 2018, were registered Republicans as is the president, Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, said in her lawsuit filed in federal court in Ohio. "Defendant officers believed that Ms Clifford was damaging President Trump and they thereafter entered into a conspiracy to arrest her during her performance in Columbus in retaliation for the public statements she had made regarding (Trump)," the suit said. The legal action against the officers could bring to light further details about the circumstances of Daniels arrest, which made headlines at the time. Columbus police had accused Daniels of committing a misdemeanour sex offence while performing at the club Sirens by touching three customers who were undercover vice detectives. The charge was dropped hours later. Daniels had committed no crime because she did not perform regularly at the club, as required under the law, a city attorney said at the time. The Columbus Division of Police launched an internal investigation soon after the incident. "The Columbus Division of Police internal affairs bureau continues its investigation, therefore it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this matter at this time," the division said in a statement about the lawsuit. The division, in Ohio's state capital, was not named as a defendant in Daniels` lawsuit, which accused the officers of violating her civil rights. A representative for the police union for the officers could not immediately be reached for comment. Daniels sued Trump for defamation in March 2018, before her arrest, and was seeking release from a non-disclosure agreement she signed before the 2016 presidential election to remain silent about the affair she said she had with Trump. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels, saying she was paid to stop "false and extortionist accusations." A federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Daniels` defamation lawsuit last year. Daniels` attorney, Michael Avenatti, has described her arrest as a politically motivated set-up since the day it happened. "Here in America, unlike in Russia, we don`t arrest citizens for political purposes in order to silence them," Avenatti said in a statement on Monday.

Stormy Daniels sues over Ohio strip club arrest, calling it political

A local court has issued notices against Tata Sons former chairman Ratan Tata, present chairman N Chandrasekaran and eight directors of the group along with the group chief operating officer in a defamation complaint filed by Wadia group chairman Nusli Wadia. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The notices were issued by the Esplanade court of Additional Chief &nbsp;Metropolitan Magistrate MI Lokwani last Saturday and posted the matter for further hearing on March 25, 2019. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Wadia had recorded his statement on December 14. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Apart from Tata and Chandrasekaran, the other respondents are Ajay Piramal, Amit Chandra, Ishaat Hussain, Nitin Nohria, Ranendra Sen, Vijay Singh, Venu Srinivasan, Ralf Speth and F N Subedar, the group chief operating officer. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Wadia filed the complaint in 2016 after he was voted out of some of the group companies, where he was a board member, claiming that Tata and the others had made defamatory statements against him after they removed Cyrus Mistry on October 24, 2016 as the group chairman of Tata Sons. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Wadia was on the boards of group companies like Indian Hotels Company that runs the Taj group of hotels, TCS, Tata Motors and Tata Steel among others as an independent director. He was voted out by shareholders at the specially convened general meeting between December 2016 and 
February 2017. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Wadia's counsel Abad Ponda informed a metropolitan magistrate court that the accused persons had alleged that Wadia was acting in concert with Mistry, and thus against the interests of the Tata group as a whole. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Wadia in his complaint claimed that he approached the court as he was not satisfied with the explanations the respondents had given him following his letters to them and his complaint seeks to initiate defamation proceedings against them under section 500 of IPC. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The magistrate, however, refused to issue process (notice) to Tata Sons observing that it is a company and not an individual person. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"It appears that complainant (Wadia) has made out a case against accused No 2 to 12 (Tata and others) but there is no such case made out against accused No 1 (Tata Sons) for the offence punishable under section 500. Hence issue process against accused No. 2 to 12," the magistrate said in his order. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Meanwhile, a Tata Sons spokesperson said all due processes were followed in relation to Nusli Wadia's removal as independent director. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"Tata Sons had, in exercise of its statutory rights, validly issued a 'Special Notice' seeking his removal. While Wadia has alleged that the contents of the Special Notice were defamatory, the matter is currently sub judice and Tata Sons strongly deny such allegations," the statement said.

A local court has issued notices against Tata Sons former chairman Ratan Tata, present chairman N Chandrasekaran and eight directors of the group along with the group chief operating officer in a defamation complaint filed by Wadia group chairman Nusli Wadia.

A local court has issued notices against Tata Sons former chairman Ratan Tata, present chairman N Chandrasekaran and eight directors of the group along with the group chief operating officer in a defamation complaint filed by Wadia group chairman Nusli Wadia. The notices were issued by the Esplanade court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate MI Lokwani last Saturday and posted the matter for further hearing on March 25, 2019. Wadia had recorded his statement on December 14. Apart from Tata and Chandrasekaran, the other respondents are Ajay Piramal, Amit Chandra, Ishaat Hussain, Nitin Nohria, Ranendra Sen, Vijay Singh, Venu Srinivasan, Ralf Speth and F N Subedar, the group chief operating officer. Wadia filed the complaint in 2016 after he was voted out of some of the group companies, where he was a board member, claiming that Tata and the others had made defamatory statements against him after they removed Cyrus Mistry on October 24, 2016 as the group chairman of Tata Sons. Wadia was on the boards of group companies like Indian Hotels Company that runs the Taj group of hotels, TCS, Tata Motors and Tata Steel among others as an independent director. He was voted out by shareholders at the specially convened general meeting between December 2016 and February 2017. Wadia's counsel Abad Ponda informed a metropolitan magistrate court that the accused persons had alleged that Wadia was acting in concert with Mistry, and thus against the interests of the Tata group as a whole. Wadia in his complaint claimed that he approached the court as he was not satisfied with the explanations the respondents had given him following his letters to them and his complaint seeks to initiate defamation proceedings against them under section 500 of IPC. The magistrate, however, refused to issue process (notice) to Tata Sons observing that it is a company and not an individual person. "It appears that complainant (Wadia) has made out a case against accused No 2 to 12 (Tata and others) but there is no such case made out against accused No 1 (Tata Sons) for the offence punishable under section 500. Hence issue process against accused No. 2 to 12," the magistrate said in his order. Meanwhile, a Tata Sons spokesperson said all due processes were followed in relation to Nusli Wadia's removal as independent director. "Tata Sons had, in exercise of its statutory rights, validly issued a 'Special Notice' seeking his removal. While Wadia has alleged that the contents of the Special Notice were defamatory, the matter is currently sub judice and Tata Sons strongly deny such allegations," the statement said.

Nusli Wadia defamation case: Court issues notices to Ratan Tata and 9 Tata Sons directors

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September.

Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order on Thursday on a petition by Stalin against the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed against him under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC over his alleged public speech in Salem on September 18 criticising the chief minister.

The case was initially filed in a court in Salem and later transferred to the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in Chennai.

Stalin submitted that the trial court had failed to note that the allegations made against the chief minister did not amount to defamation.

He alleged that the complaint had been filed with malicious and political motive to harass him.

Making a statement against Palaniswami in his individual capacity cannot be said to be damaging the reputation of the office of the chief minister, the DMK chief submitted.

The public prosecutor opposed the plea and argued that baseless and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner against the chief minister constituted criminal defamation and he was liable to be prosecuted.

<img src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" />

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September.

The Madras High Court has stayed proceedings in a criminal defamation case against DMK president M K Stalin over certain remarks made by him against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami in September. Justice N Anand Venkatesh issued the interim order on Thursday on a petition by Stalin against the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed against him under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC over his alleged public speech in Salem on September 18 criticising the chief minister. The case was initially filed in a court in Salem and later transferred to the special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in Chennai. Stalin submitted that the trial court had failed to note that the allegations made against the chief minister did not amount to defamation. He alleged that the complaint had been filed with malicious and political motive to harass him. Making a statement against Palaniswami in his individual capacity cannot be said to be damaging the reputation of the office of the chief minister, the DMK chief submitted. The public prosecutor opposed the plea and argued that baseless and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner against the chief minister constituted criminal defamation and he was liable to be prosecuted.

Madras High Court stays proceedings in defamation case against DMK chief Stalin

Former union minister MJ Akbar's lawyer said in court on Thursday that "irreparable damage"&nbsp;had been caused to his reputation. The court was hearing the criminal defamation case Akbar has filed against the journalist Priya Ramani.&nbsp;

As many as 16 women have accused Akbar of sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct. Akbar however&nbsp;zeroed in on Ramani because he says she <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/metoo-union-minister-mj-akbar-files-defamation-case-against-journalist-priya-ramani-171563">began "this campaign" against him</a>.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-absolute-truth-is-my-only-defence-priya-ramani-after-mj-akbar-files-criminal-defamation-case-against-her-171599">'The absolute truth is my only defence,' says Priya Ramani</a>&nbsp;

"Irreparable damage caused to Akbar’s reputation which he has built over 40 years. Articles in international and national media quoted these defamatory tweets," Luthra said.&nbsp;

She then added that "tweets are defamatory unless Ramani proves anything".&nbsp;&nbsp;

Ramani was the first person to describe Akbar's misconduct — without naming him. She wrote, in 2017, about how Akbar had interviewed her in a Mumbai hotel room when she had been 23 years old. Akbar had been 43 at the time.&nbsp;

The other allegations against Akbar came after India's own #MeToo movement kicked off with the actor Tanushree Dutta accusing Nana Patekar of sexual misconduct.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Criminal defamation case filed by <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJAkbar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJAkbar</a> against journalist Priya Ramani: MJ Akbar's lawyer Geeta Luthra said before court, "Irreparable damage caused to Akbar’s reputation which he has built over 40 years."
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1052847448245202945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Priya Ramani has tweeted defamatory tweets against the complainant. Her second tweet was clearly defamatory and liked by 1200 people,"&nbsp;Luthra said in court on Thursday.&nbsp;

The court will hear the statements of Akbar and other witnesses in the case on October 31.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0g9I6lDnyBo" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

(With inputs from agencies)

Former union minister MJ Akbar's lawyer said in court on Thursday that "irreparable damage" had been caused to his reputation. The court was hearing the criminal defamation case Akbar has filed against the journalist Priya Ramani.

Former union minister MJ Akbar's lawyer said in court on Thursday that "irreparable damage" had been caused to his reputation. The court was hearing the criminal defamation case Akbar has filed against the journalist Priya Ramani. As many as 16 women have accused Akbar of sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct. Akbar however zeroed in on Ramani because he says she began "this campaign" against him. Also read: 'The absolute truth is my only defence,' says Priya Ramani "Irreparable damage caused to Akbar’s reputation which he has built over 40 years. Articles in international and national media quoted these defamatory tweets," Luthra said. She then added that "tweets are defamatory unless Ramani proves anything". Ramani was the first person to describe Akbar's misconduct — without naming him. She wrote, in 2017, about how Akbar had interviewed her in a Mumbai hotel room when she had been 23 years old. Akbar had been 43 at the time. The other allegations against Akbar came after India's own #MeToo movement kicked off with the actor Tanushree Dutta accusing Nana Patekar of sexual misconduct. Criminal defamation case filed by #MJAkbar against journalist Priya Ramani: MJ Akbar's lawyer Geeta Luthra said before court, "Irreparable damage caused to Akbar’s reputation which he has built over 40 years." — ANI (@ANI) October 18, 2018 × "Priya Ramani has tweeted defamatory tweets against the complainant. Her second tweet was clearly defamatory and liked by 1200 people," Luthra said in court on Thursday. The court will hear the statements of Akbar and other witnesses in the case on October 31. × (With inputs from agencies)

'Irreparable damage caused to Akbar’s reputation,' his lawyer says in court

Singer Kesha, in a text message to fellow singer Lady Gaga, has accused former collaborator Dr. Luke of raping singer Katy Perry, according to court documents filed here. Dr. Luke`s representative has denied the allegation.&nbsp;Obtained by a website, the documents are a part of the ongoing defamation case between Kesha and Luke.

The documents reportedly contain Luke`s refutation of three of Kesha`s claims against him -- previously known allegations that he gave the singer drugs against her will and that he raped her, as well as the previously undisclosed claim that he raped Perry. The news was first reported by publication The Blast.

The claim was revealed in a text message sent from Kesha to Lady Gaga, according to the documents, which read in part: "On February 26, 2016 (Kesha) sent a text message to Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) which repeated (Kesha`s) false claim that (Luke) had raped her.

"(Kesha) also falsely asserted that (Luke) had also raped Kathryn Hudson (Katy Perry)Following this text message conversation, and with (Kesha`s) encouragement, (Gaga) spread negative messages about (Luke) in the press and on social media."

Previously, the existence of the text message had been publicly discussed, but its contents have been revealed for the first time.

The documents also reportedly said Perry has been deposed as part of the lawsuit, although there is no indication of what she said. Perry has never publicly accused Luke of sexual misconduct, although she has not worked with him professionally for several years.

In a statement, Luke`s legal team denied the accusations detailed in the court documents.&nbsp;

"Katy Perry herself confirmed that Dr. Luke did not rape her. Kesha`s accusation to the contrary - just like her other outrageous lies about Dr. Luke - is baseless and irresponsible, and it is disrespectful to both Katy Perry and Dr. Luke. In his defamation lawsuit against Kesha, Dr. Luke seeks damages for the harm caused by these malicious falsehoods."

Luke`s defamation lawsuit against Kesha the last remaining suit in a legal battle that began in 2014 when the pop star went public with claims that the producer had abused her. That year, Luke filed a complaint against Kesha for failing to work on a third album as required under her contract.&nbsp;

Kesha filed a countersuit, seeking to be released from the contract on the basis of allegations that Luke had raped her and verbally abused her over the course of several years. The courts have ruled against Kesha in every attempt to extricate herself from her contracts with him and his label, and last year she released an album, "Rainbow," on the label containing several songs that obliquely reference her battles with the producer.&nbsp;

The documents are a part of the ongoing defamation case between Kesha and Luke.

Singer Kesha, in a text message to fellow singer Lady Gaga, has accused former collaborator Dr. Luke of raping singer Katy Perry, according to court documents filed here. Dr. Luke`s representative has denied the allegation. Obtained by a website, the documents are a part of the ongoing defamation case between Kesha and Luke. The documents reportedly contain Luke`s refutation of three of Kesha`s claims against him -- previously known allegations that he gave the singer drugs against her will and that he raped her, as well as the previously undisclosed claim that he raped Perry. The news was first reported by publication The Blast. The claim was revealed in a text message sent from Kesha to Lady Gaga, according to the documents, which read in part: "On February 26, 2016 (Kesha) sent a text message to Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) which repeated (Kesha`s) false claim that (Luke) had raped her. "(Kesha) also falsely asserted that (Luke) had also raped Kathryn Hudson (Katy Perry)Following this text message conversation, and with (Kesha`s) encouragement, (Gaga) spread negative messages about (Luke) in the press and on social media." Previously, the existence of the text message had been publicly discussed, but its contents have been revealed for the first time. The documents also reportedly said Perry has been deposed as part of the lawsuit, although there is no indication of what she said. Perry has never publicly accused Luke of sexual misconduct, although she has not worked with him professionally for several years. In a statement, Luke`s legal team denied the accusations detailed in the court documents. "Katy Perry herself confirmed that Dr. Luke did not rape her. Kesha`s accusation to the contrary - just like her other outrageous lies about Dr. Luke - is baseless and irresponsible, and it is disrespectful to both Katy Perry and Dr. Luke. In his defamation lawsuit against Kesha, Dr. Luke seeks damages for the harm caused by these malicious falsehoods." Luke`s defamation lawsuit against Kesha the last remaining suit in a legal battle that began in 2014 when the pop star went public with claims that the producer had abused her. That year, Luke filed a complaint against Kesha for failing to work on a third album as required under her contract. Kesha filed a countersuit, seeking to be released from the contract on the basis of allegations that Luke had raped her and verbally abused her over the course of several years. The courts have ruled against Kesha in every attempt to extricate herself from her contracts with him and his label, and last year she released an album, "Rainbow," on the label containing several songs that obliquely reference her battles with the producer.

Kesha accused Dr Luke of raping Katy Perry, new documents reveal

Dissident Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Kumar Vishwas on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that his statements against Union minister Arun Jaitley were based on information received as a party worker from Arvind Kejriwal.

Vishwas, who was present in person in court, told Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw that before making any statement or apology to Jaitley, he wants to know if Kejriwal lied when he said his allegations against the Union Minister were based on documents.

The dissident AAP leader told the court that he needs more time to decide what statement he will make so that the suit can be disposed of as he was personally not interested in taking the matter forward.

Vishwas is now the only one against whom the defamation suit remains after Kejriwal and four other AAP leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai-- tendered unequivocal apology to Jaitley in the Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed against them by the union minister.

Taking note of his request, the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 28.&nbsp

Vishwas, who was present in person in court, told Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw that before making any statement or apology to Jaitley, he wants to know if Kejriwal lied when he said his allegations against the Union Minister were based on documents

Dissident Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Kumar Vishwas on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that his statements against Union minister Arun Jaitley were based on information received as a party worker from Arvind Kejriwal. Vishwas, who was present in person in court, told Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw that before making any statement or apology to Jaitley, he wants to know if Kejriwal lied when he said his allegations against the Union Minister were based on documents. The dissident AAP leader told the court that he needs more time to decide what statement he will make so that the suit can be disposed of as he was personally not interested in taking the matter forward. Vishwas is now the only one against whom the defamation suit remains after Kejriwal and four other AAP leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai-- tendered unequivocal apology to Jaitley in the Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed against them by the union minister. Taking note of his request, the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 28.

Vishwas tells High Court his statements against Jaitley based on Kejriwal's information

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels on Monday sued US&nbspPresident Donald Trump for defamation, saying he lied by tweeting that her claim of being threatened if she discussed an alleged sexual encounter with him was a "total con job."

The lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan escalates Daniels' litigation with Trump and his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid her $130,000 before the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election not to talk about the alleged sexual encounter a decade earlier.

Neither Trump's lawyers nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment. Cohen was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but faces a separate defamation lawsuit by Daniels.

Trump used Twitter on April 18 to complain about a composite sketch that Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti had released the previous day.

That sketch depicted a man Daniels said assailed her in a Las Vegas parking lot soon after she had agreed in May 2011 to work with In Touch magazine on a story about her relationship with Trump.

"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man," Trump wrote. "A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!"

In her complaint, Daniels said the assailant had urged her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story," and after looking at her infant daughter said: "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom."

Daniels said the president knew his tweet was false or made it with reckless disregard for its truth, and falsely accused her of making up the assailant.

"By calling the incident a 'con job' Mr. Trump's statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law," Daniels said in her complaint.

Trump presently has 51.4 million Twitter followers.

Not Trump's first defamation case

A Los Angeles judge on Friday put Daniels' lawsuit there against Cohen and Trump to end her non-disclosure agreement on hold for 90 days.

The judge cited the reasonably high likelihood that letting the case continue might threaten Cohen's constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Cohen faces a criminal probe into his business affairs by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, including over the $130,000 payment, which he has called legal.

The Los Angeles case also includes Daniels' claim that Cohen defamed her in a Feb. 13 statement by implying she had lied about her relationship with Trump.

"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump," Cohen had said.

Daniels sued Trump as an individual, not in his capacity as president, which could pose problems for any defence.

"He'll have to litigate unless he can get a court to agree he has a privilege not to while he's president," said Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor.

Burbank co-wrote an earlier brief arguing that then-President Bill Clinton was not immune in federal court from private civil lawsuits during his presidency for unofficial acts. The Supreme Court adopted that view in 1997.

Daniels' defamation case is also not the president's first.

Trump is appealing a March 20 decision by a New York state judge in Manhattan that allowed Summer Zervos, a contestant on his former TV show "The Apprentice," to pursue her own defamation case.

Zervos had accused Trump of kissing her against her will and groping her at a meeting about a possible job, and that he defamed her by calling such allegations lies.

Trump has argued that he was immune from that lawsuit.

Daniels has offered a $100,000 reward for information about the man in the sketch.

Daniels sued Trump as an individual, not in his capacity as president, which could pose problems for any defence

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels on Monday sued US&nbspPresident Donald Trump for defamation, saying he lied by tweeting that her claim of being threatened if she discussed an alleged sexual encounter with him was a "total con job." The lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan escalates Daniels' litigation with Trump and his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid her $130,000 before the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election not to talk about the alleged sexual encounter a decade earlier. Neither Trump's lawyers nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment. Cohen was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but faces a separate defamation lawsuit by Daniels. Trump used Twitter on April 18 to complain about a composite sketch that Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti had released the previous day. That sketch depicted a man Daniels said assailed her in a Las Vegas parking lot soon after she had agreed in May 2011 to work with In Touch magazine on a story about her relationship with Trump. "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man," Trump wrote. "A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!" In her complaint, Daniels said the assailant had urged her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story," and after looking at her infant daughter said: "That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom." Daniels said the president knew his tweet was false or made it with reckless disregard for its truth, and falsely accused her of making up the assailant. "By calling the incident a 'con job' Mr. Trump's statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law," Daniels said in her complaint. Trump presently has 51.4 million Twitter followers. Not Trump's first defamation case A Los Angeles judge on Friday put Daniels' lawsuit there against Cohen and Trump to end her non-disclosure agreement on hold for 90 days. The judge cited the reasonably high likelihood that letting the case continue might threaten Cohen's constitutional right against self-incrimination. Cohen faces a criminal probe into his business affairs by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, including over the $130,000 payment, which he has called legal. The Los Angeles case also includes Daniels' claim that Cohen defamed her in a Feb. 13 statement by implying she had lied about her relationship with Trump. "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean that it can't cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump," Cohen had said. Daniels sued Trump as an individual, not in his capacity as president, which could pose problems for any defence. "He'll have to litigate unless he can get a court to agree he has a privilege not to while he's president," said Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. Burbank co-wrote an earlier brief arguing that then-President Bill Clinton was not immune in federal court from private civil lawsuits during his presidency for unofficial acts. The Supreme Court adopted that view in 1997. Daniels' defamation case is also not the president's first. Trump is appealing a March 20 decision by a New York state judge in Manhattan that allowed Summer Zervos, a contestant on his former TV show "The Apprentice," to pursue her own defamation case. Zervos had accused Trump of kissing her against her will and groping her at a meeting about a possible job, and that he defamed her by calling such allegations lies. Trump has argued that he was immune from that lawsuit. Daniels has offered a $100,000 reward for information about the man in the sketch.

Stormy Daniels sues Donald Trump for defamation over 'con job' tweet

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday withdrew from the Delhi High Court his pleas challenging trial court orders in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row.&nbsp

The lawyers for Kejriwal told the high court that since he has been acquitted in the case after he had apologised for his statements against Jaitley in connection with alleged irregularities in DDCA, the AAP convenor's appeals against the trial court orders have become infructuous.

Taking note of the submission, Justice A K Pathak dismissed as withdrawn the two pleas seeking quashing of the summons issued to Kejriwal in the criminal defamation case and expunging of remarks made against him by the trial court.

The trial court had on April 3 acquitted Kejriwal and four other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai - after a joint application was filed by them and Jaitley to settle the matter.

The application was filed on April 2 after the AAP leaders apologised to Jaitley for their statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in the DDCA.

Jaitley had accused Kejriwal and other AAP leaders -- Kumar Viswas, Singh, Chadha, Ashutosh and Bajpai -- of making a series of "false, scandalous and defamatory" allegations against him, claiming it adversely affected his reputation.

Vishwas has not yet tendered an apology and hence, the proceedings against him shall continue.

The AAP leaders had alleged financial irregularities in the DDCA when Jaitley was its president from 2000 to 2013, prompting the minister to lodge a defamation case against them while denying all the allegations.

The criminal defamation case has been filed against Arvind Kejriwal by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row

Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday withdrew from the Delhi High Court his pleas challenging trial court orders in a criminal defamation case filed against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in connection with the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) row. The lawyers for Kejriwal told the high court that since he has been acquitted in the case after he had apologised for his statements against Jaitley in connection with alleged irregularities in DDCA, the AAP convenor's appeals against the trial court orders have become infructuous. Taking note of the submission, Justice A K Pathak dismissed as withdrawn the two pleas seeking quashing of the summons issued to Kejriwal in the criminal defamation case and expunging of remarks made against him by the trial court. The trial court had on April 3 acquitted Kejriwal and four other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Sanjay Singh, Ashutosh and Deepak Bajpai - after a joint application was filed by them and Jaitley to settle the matter. The application was filed on April 2 after the AAP leaders apologised to Jaitley for their statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in the DDCA. Jaitley had accused Kejriwal and other AAP leaders -- Kumar Viswas, Singh, Chadha, Ashutosh and Bajpai -- of making a series of "false, scandalous and defamatory" allegations against him, claiming it adversely affected his reputation. Vishwas has not yet tendered an apology and hence, the proceedings against him shall continue. The AAP leaders had alleged financial irregularities in the DDCA when Jaitley was its president from 2000 to 2013, prompting the minister to lodge a defamation case against them while denying all the allegations.

Kejriwal withdraws appeal in high court against summons in defamation case

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party leaders Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chadha and Ashutosh have apologized to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in a joint letter.

The apology came after Jaitley had filed a defamation case against the AAP leaders.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leaders Sanjay Singh,Ashutosh and Raghav Chadha apologize to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the defamation case he had filed against them <a href="https://t.co/CJFqxVD738">pic.twitter.com/CJFqxVD738</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980711449113890816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In his letter, Kejriwal admitted having made "certain statements" about Jaitley in connection to his tenure as the President of the Delhi & District Cricket Association.&nbsp;

Kejriwal further noted that the statements made by him were based on the information served to him by those who claimed to have first-hand knowledge about DDCA affairs.&nbsp;

"Therefore, I unequivocally withdraw all the allegations made by me in question whether made in print, electronic or social media against you. I offer my sincere apology to you and your family members for any harm caused to your reputation as a consequence of my allegations," the letter read.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Defamation suit(by FM Arun Jaitley) not being withdrawn, Joint application being filed for decree based on apology by Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders: Sources
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/980711787908780032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 2, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, Arun Jaitley has refused to roll back the case against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders named in the lawsuit.&nbsp;

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

In his letter, Kejriwal admitted having made "certain statements" about Jaitley in connection with his tenure as the President of the Delhi & District Cricket Association

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party leaders Sanjay Singh, Raghav Chadha and Ashutosh have apologized to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in a joint letter. The apology came after Jaitley had filed a defamation case against the AAP leaders. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, AAP leaders Sanjay Singh,Ashutosh and Raghav Chadha apologize to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the defamation case he had filed against them pic.twitter.com/CJFqxVD738 — ANI (@ANI) April 2, 2018 × In his letter, Kejriwal admitted having made "certain statements" about Jaitley in connection to his tenure as the President of the Delhi & District Cricket Association. Kejriwal further noted that the statements made by him were based on the information served to him by those who claimed to have first-hand knowledge about DDCA affairs. "Therefore, I unequivocally withdraw all the allegations made by me in question whether made in print, electronic or social media against you. I offer my sincere apology to you and your family members for any harm caused to your reputation as a consequence of my allegations," the letter read. Defamation suit(by FM Arun Jaitley) not being withdrawn, Joint application being filed for decree based on apology by Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders: Sources — ANI (@ANI) April 2, 2018 × Meanwhile, Arun Jaitley has refused to roll back the case against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders named in the lawsuit. (With inputs from ANI)

Kejriwal apologises again, Arun Jaitley refuses to roll back defamation case

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday apologised to former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia for alleging that he was involved in the &quot;drug trade&quot;.

The development came to light after the former Punjab minister took to Twitter to share the apology letter sent to him by the Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. Taking to Twitter, Bikram Majithia wrote, &ldquo;CM @ArvindKejriwal has tendered an apology to me in the court, for all the baseless&amp;false allegations he &amp; his party levelled against me in drug issue.My mother suffered the most due to all this and this apology is a vindication of her faith in Waheguru&rsquo;s power of justice.&rdquo;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
CM <a href="https://twitter.com/ArvindKejriwal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ArvindKejriwal</a> has tendered an apology to me in the court,for all the baseless&amp;false allegations he &amp; his party levelled against me in drug <a href="https://t.co/Fl679yeKHW">https://t.co/Fl679yeKHW</a> mother suffered the most due to all this&amp;this apology is vindication of her faith in Waheguru&rsquo;s power of justice <a href="https://t.co/YXs3f710eu">pic.twitter.com/YXs3f710eu</a>
&mdash; Bikram Majithia (@bsmajithia) <a href="https://twitter.com/bsmajithia/status/974273822017970176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

According to the apology letter, CM Kejriwal has retracted his allegations that he made against the former Punjab Minister and has further offered his regret.&nbsp;

During the 2017 Punjab elections, Kejriwal had attacked the Punjab government and particularly Majithia for being hand in glove with the drug mafia in the state.

Majithia had filed a defamation case against the Aam Aadmi Party chief and others following the allegation made during campaigning in the Punjab assembly elections.

A media reports said that Kejriwal, who has some 20 defamation cases filed against him, will make apologies for them too.

(WIth inputs from Agencies)

CM Kejriwal has retracted his allegations that he made against the former Punjab Minister and has further offered his regret.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday apologised to former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia for alleging that he was involved in the "drug trade". The development came to light after the former Punjab minister took to Twitter to share the apology letter sent to him by the Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal. Taking to Twitter, Bikram Majithia wrote, “CM @ArvindKejriwal has tendered an apology to me in the court, for all the baseless&false allegations he & his party levelled against me in drug issue.My mother suffered the most due to all this and this apology is a vindication of her faith in Waheguru’s power of justice.” CM @ArvindKejriwal has tendered an apology to me in the court,for all the baseless&false allegations he & his party levelled against me in drug https://t.co/Fl679yeKHW mother suffered the most due to all this&this apology is vindication of her faith in Waheguru’s power of justice pic.twitter.com/YXs3f710eu — Bikram Majithia (@bsmajithia) March 15, 2018 × According to the apology letter, CM Kejriwal has retracted his allegations that he made against the former Punjab Minister and has further offered his regret. During the 2017 Punjab elections, Kejriwal had attacked the Punjab government and particularly Majithia for being hand in glove with the drug mafia in the state. Majithia had filed a defamation case against the Aam Aadmi Party chief and others following the allegation made during campaigning in the Punjab assembly elections. A media reports said that Kejriwal, who has some 20 defamation cases filed against him, will make apologies for them too. (WIth inputs from Agencies)

Kejriwal says sorry to former Punjab minister, other apologies may follow

In a big blow to Delhi chief minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Anoop George Chaudhary,&nbsp;his&nbsp;lawyer in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/delhi-chief-minister-arvind-kejriwal-to-face-trial-in-arun-jaitleys-criminal-defamation-case-13792" target="_blank">defamation case filed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley</a>, has quit.&nbsp;

Chaudhary cited &quot;bad briefing&quot; as a reason&nbsp;for his quitting.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Senior Counsel Anoop George Chaudhari quits as <a href="https://twitter.com/ArvindKejriwal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ArvindKejriwal</a> lawyer in the <a href="https://twitter.com/arunjaitley?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@arunjaitley</a> defamation case. Blames bad briefing which led to embarrassment before the court during cross examination <a href="https://t.co/sdljzm8jOM">pic.twitter.com/sdljzm8jOM</a>
&mdash; Bar &amp; Bench (@barandbench) <a href="https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/964444004996624384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

In a letter issued to Advocate Instructing Counsel, he wrote: &quot; I shall no longer be able to appear for Defendant No.1 Arvind Kejriwal and am withdrawing from the case due to the inadequate briefing which resulted in an embarrassing situation before Justice Endlaw on 12th of February.&quot;

Earlier Ram<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/ram-jethmalani-to-arvind-kejriwal-you-used-worse-abuses-than-crook-for-arun-jaitley-18374" target="_blank"> Jethmalani quit </a>as Kejriwal&#39;s lawyer from the same case citing his &quot;lie&quot; as the reason.

He said, &quot;The reason behind it is he has spoken a lie. He has gone and said that I have not given any instructions, but fact is he did and I have them recorded. I&#39;m not disappointed at all; I did all that I could do. If he does not pay me I don&#39;t mind, because I have fought for many for free. It does not make a difference if I lose one&quot;.

Arun Jaitley had filed a suit seeking Rs 10 crore in damages after Kejriwal and the five other AAP leaders accused him of alleged irregularities and financial bungling in the DDCA.

The finance minister alleged that the AAP leaders made &quot;false and defamatory&quot; statement harming his reputation.

In a big blow to Arvind Kejriwal, Anoop George Chaudhary quit as his lawyer in the defamation case filed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley

In a big blow to Delhi chief minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, Anoop George Chaudhary, his lawyer in the defamation case filed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, has quit. Chaudhary cited "bad briefing" as a reason for his quitting. Senior Counsel Anoop George Chaudhari quits as @ArvindKejriwal lawyer in the @arunjaitley defamation case. Blames bad briefing which led to embarrassment before the court during cross examination pic.twitter.com/sdljzm8jOM — Bar & Bench (@barandbench) February 16, 2018 × In a letter issued to Advocate Instructing Counsel, he wrote: " I shall no longer be able to appear for Defendant No.1 Arvind Kejriwal and am withdrawing from the case due to the inadequate briefing which resulted in an embarrassing situation before Justice Endlaw on 12th of February." Earlier Ram Jethmalani quit as Kejriwal's lawyer from the same case citing his "lie" as the reason. He said, "The reason behind it is he has spoken a lie. He has gone and said that I have not given any instructions, but fact is he did and I have them recorded. I'm not disappointed at all; I did all that I could do. If he does not pay me I don't mind, because I have fought for many for free. It does not make a difference if I lose one". Arun Jaitley had filed a suit seeking Rs 10 crore in damages after Kejriwal and the five other AAP leaders accused him of alleged irregularities and financial bungling in the DDCA. The finance minister alleged that the AAP leaders made "false and defamatory" statement harming his reputation.

Arun Jaitley defamation case: Arvind Kejriwal's lawyer quits

Chris Gayle won a defamation case against an Australian media company in the New South Wales Supreme Court on Monday over an alleged&nbsp;masseuse incident that took place during the 2015 World Cup.&nbsp;

Gayle was also expected to provide evidence on his part at the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court.

After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Fairfax media had failed to establish the truth of a series of reports it ran alleging the 103-test cricketer had exposed himself to a masseuse during the tournament.

It also found Fairfax had failed to establish that the allegation Gayle had propositioned the masseuse was &quot;substantially true&quot;.

&quot;I came all the way from Jamaica to actually defend myself and my character as well. At the end of the day I&#39;m very, very happy,&quot; Gayle told reporters outside the court.

&quot;I&#39;m a good man. I&#39;m not guilty,&quot; said&nbsp;Gayle after the verdict.

The jury also found that Fairfax, which publishes The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers, was motivated by &quot;malice&quot; in publishing the stories.

A hearing over the amount of damages will be held at a later date.

Fairfax Media later released a statement saying said the company was &quot;concerned with the conduct of the trial to the extent that on Friday it sought an order that the jury be discharged and a new trial ordered&quot;.

&quot;Fairfax believes that it did not get a fair trial,&quot; it concluded. &quot;It is seriously considering its appeal rights.&quot;

'I came all the way from Jamaica to actually defend myself and my character as well. At the end of the day I'm very, very happy,' Gayle said

Chris Gayle won a defamation case against an Australian media company in the New South Wales Supreme Court on Monday over an alleged masseuse incident that took place during the 2015 World Cup. Gayle was also expected to provide evidence on his part at the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court. After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Fairfax media had failed to establish the truth of a series of reports it ran alleging the 103-test cricketer had exposed himself to a masseuse during the tournament. It also found Fairfax had failed to establish that the allegation Gayle had propositioned the masseuse was "substantially true". "I came all the way from Jamaica to actually defend myself and my character as well. At the end of the day I'm very, very happy," Gayle told reporters outside the court. "I'm a good man. I'm not guilty," said Gayle after the verdict. The jury also found that Fairfax, which publishes The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers, was motivated by "malice" in publishing the stories. A hearing over the amount of damages will be held at a later date. Fairfax Media later released a statement saying said the company was "concerned with the conduct of the trial to the extent that on Friday it sought an order that the jury be discharged and a new trial ordered". "Fairfax believes that it did not get a fair trial," it concluded. "It is seriously considering its appeal rights."

Chris Gayle wins defamation case

&quot;Should I pay from my pocket?&quot; Arvind Kejriwal today asked, breaking his silence on the controversy over his move to pay lawyer Ram Jethmalani from the public exchequer for defending him in a defamation case.

Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who had directed the General Administration Department to clear the bills due to Jethmalani, said the issue has been raked up to divert the attention from the EVM controversy.

Jethmalani has not been paid yet and the matter is pending with Lt Governor Anil Baijal.

The bills totalled around Rs 3.4 crore.

Kejriwal made the remarks addressing a rally in north-east Delhi&#39;s Seemapuri constituency. He said the controversy was created to &quot;weaken&quot; the AAP government&#39;s fight against corruption.

&quot;Who plays cricket here?&quot; he asked pointing towards the crowd. &quot;In Delhi there was massive corruption in cricket. You must have heard of DDCA. It was heavily corrupt. Youngsters used to come to me and complain that money is sought for selection.&quot;

&quot;I initiated a probe into it. Then the BJP filed a case against me. We hired top lawyer Ram Jethmalani. They ask why should the government pay? Should I pay from my pocket? They want to weaken our fight against corruption,&quot; Kejriwal said.

Meanwhile, Sisodia, speaking to reporters outside his residence, said the defamation case against Kejriwal was filed as he had launched a probe into &quot;corruption&quot; prevalent in the Delhi and District Cricket Administration (DDCA).

&quot;When they challenged something which was being probed by the government then the lawyers bill has to be paid by the government. It was not Arvind Kejriwal&#39;s personal case.

Sisodia also raised question over the timing of the issue being raked up.

&quot;The case has been on for the last one and a half years. But why is it being talked about now? Because they have found themselves in a spot over the EVM controversy,&quot; he said.

(PTI)

Kejriwal's legal bills, against a defamation case filed by Indian finance minister Arun Jaitley, add up to Rs 3.4 crore

"Should I pay from my pocket?" Arvind Kejriwal today asked, breaking his silence on the controversy over his move to pay lawyer Ram Jethmalani from the public exchequer for defending him in a defamation case. Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who had directed the General Administration Department to clear the bills due to Jethmalani, said the issue has been raked up to divert the attention from the EVM controversy. Jethmalani has not been paid yet and the matter is pending with Lt Governor Anil Baijal. The bills totalled around Rs 3.4 crore. Kejriwal made the remarks addressing a rally in north-east Delhi's Seemapuri constituency. He said the controversy was created to "weaken" the AAP government's fight against corruption. "Who plays cricket here?" he asked pointing towards the crowd. "In Delhi there was massive corruption in cricket. You must have heard of DDCA. It was heavily corrupt. Youngsters used to come to me and complain that money is sought for selection." "I initiated a probe into it. Then the BJP filed a case against me. We hired top lawyer Ram Jethmalani. They ask why should the government pay? Should I pay from my pocket? They want to weaken our fight against corruption," Kejriwal said. Meanwhile, Sisodia, speaking to reporters outside his residence, said the defamation case against Kejriwal was filed as he had launched a probe into "corruption" prevalent in the Delhi and District Cricket Administration (DDCA). "When they challenged something which was being probed by the government then the lawyers bill has to be paid by the government. It was not Arvind Kejriwal's personal case. Sisodia also raised question over the timing of the issue being raked up. "The case has been on for the last one and a half years. But why is it being talked about now? Because they have found themselves in a spot over the EVM controversy," he said. (PTI)

Delhi chief minister Kejriwal on paying Jethmalani bill: 'Should I pay from my pocket?'

The Supreme Court of India rapped the 46-year old vice-president of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi,&nbsp;in connection with a defamation case filed against him by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Right wing Hindu nationalist organisation.&nbsp; 
 
The apex body denounced Gandhi&#39;s remarks on RSS and said that the Congress politician must face trial.&nbsp;The Congress vice-president has maintained that his statement on RSS involvement in Mahatma Gandhi&#39;s killing was a historical fact and his counsel has asserted that his statement was within his right to free speech. 
 
Gandhi had earlier urged the Supreme Court to quash the proceedings against him, but his request was denied by the court. &nbsp; 
 
The Supreme Court remained firm on Gandhi facing trial and said that the case must be decided on merit.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;You can&#39;t make wholesale denunciation of an organisation. Purpose of law is not to turn citizens into litigants,&quot; the court observed. 
 
The Supreme Court has given him time till next Wednesday to detail his arguments. 
 
RSS worker Rajesh Kunte had filed the case against Gandhi in a court in India&#39;s western state, Maharashtra. The apex court had stayed the proceedings against the Congress vice-president last year, pending before a magisterial court in Bhiwandi of Maharashtra&#39;s Thane district. 
 
Kunte had alleged that the Congress politician told an election rally at Sonale in Maharashtra on March 6 that &quot;RSS people killed Gandhiji&quot;. He said the Congress politician had sought to tarnish the reputation of the RSS through his speech. 
 
Following the complaint, the magistrate&#39;s court had initiated proceedings and issued notice to Gandhi directing him to appear before it.&nbsp; 
 
The Congress leader took the matter to the High Court seeking exemption from appearance and quashing of the complaint.&nbsp; 
Gandhi&#39;s lawyers maintained that Kunte&#39;s complaint was motivated and malafide and deserved to be quashed, but led to failed attempts.&nbsp; 
 
(ANI) 
 
&nbsp;

The Congress vice-president had alleged in a public rally that 'RSS people killed' Mahatma Gandhi which was followed by a defamation suit

The Supreme Court of India rapped the 46-year old vice-president of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi, in connection with a defamation case filed against him by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Right wing Hindu nationalist organisation. The apex body denounced Gandhi's remarks on RSS and said that the Congress politician must face trial. The Congress vice-president has maintained that his statement on RSS involvement in Mahatma Gandhi's killing was a historical fact and his counsel has asserted that his statement was within his right to free speech. Gandhi had earlier urged the Supreme Court to quash the proceedings against him, but his request was denied by the court. The Supreme Court remained firm on Gandhi facing trial and said that the case must be decided on merit. "You can't make wholesale denunciation of an organisation. Purpose of law is not to turn citizens into litigants," the court observed. The Supreme Court has given him time till next Wednesday to detail his arguments. RSS worker Rajesh Kunte had filed the case against Gandhi in a court in India's western state, Maharashtra. The apex court had stayed the proceedings against the Congress vice-president last year, pending before a magisterial court in Bhiwandi of Maharashtra's Thane district. Kunte had alleged that the Congress politician told an election rally at Sonale in Maharashtra on March 6 that "RSS people killed Gandhiji". He said the Congress politician had sought to tarnish the reputation of the RSS through his speech. Following the complaint, the magistrate's court had initiated proceedings and issued notice to Gandhi directing him to appear before it. The Congress leader took the matter to the High Court seeking exemption from appearance and quashing of the complaint. Gandhi's lawyers maintained that Kunte's complaint was motivated and malafide and deserved to be quashed, but led to failed attempts. (ANI)

India's Supreme Court raps Congress party's Rahul Gandhi over his comment on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

defamation-case

Defamation Case, News on Defamation Case, stories on Defamation Case, articles on Defamation Case, Defamation Case stories at Wion, Defamation Case news, Defamation Case latest news