Why IIPM may Have no Case

Trust a lawyer to spot something like this. Amod Paranjape, who dissected IIPM's legal notice sent to Gaurav and Varna, for us, called me a while back and said "IIPM probably has no case. IIPM's dean, referring to Gaurav's blog, has admitted that 'in no way has the written matter on the blog affected us,' that too in a print medium.

"Eh?! What are you talking about?"

"Read the Hindustan Times report on this issue. It quotes IIPM's all-India dean saying that."
(Here's a screen grab of the relevant part:)

"So?"

"Hopefully HT has quoted him right and have the tapes, etc to back it up. Read my interpretation of IIPM's notice and you'll get it. Of course, it's my interpretation and I may be wrong, but what that Dean's comment tells me is that IIPM is saying that it hasn't suffered any losses due to Gaurav's posts."

Well I did read Amod's take on the IIPM notice again and found the relevant part:

In my opinion, a corporation, an institution or a company cannot bring a suit for defamation unless certain things are complied with. Unless and untill a corporation or a company can specify whether the said article (in this case the said article refers to: JAM's article on IIPM and Gaurav and Varna's posts on their blogs) resulted in tangible business losses and provide evidence for the same, it has no grounds to proceed for defamation.

Does IIPM have a case now?

And remember:

Once a defamation suit is filed, the claims made in the said article will be checked for veracity by the court.

Visit Desipundit for the complete coverage of this issue.

You'll find my earlier posts on this here, here, here, and here.