In the context of legal studies, particularly concerning defamation, it is important to understand the nuances of different terms. The statement 'A statement, which may not be defamatory, but an innocent one which contains a secondary meaning, enough to make it a defamatory and derogatory statement' refers to the specific concept known as Innuendo.
Innuendo is a form of indirect defamation where a seemingly innocent statement is capable of being understood by those with special knowledge to have a defamatory meaning. Unlike direct attacks on reputation, innuendo relies on the audience’s ability to pick up on insinuations or secondary implications.
For example, if someone says, "Mr. Smith and the confidential files were both in the office last night," the statement itself is innocuous. However, if context reveals Mr. Smith was suspected of leaking confidential information, the statement might carry an innuendo suggesting misconduct.
Match List I (General Defences in Tort) with List II (Leading Cases) and select the correct answer:
| List I | List II | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| i. | Act of God | 1. | Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 |
| ii. | Consent (Volenti non fit injuria) | 2. | Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1933) 1 KB 205 |
| iii. | Statutory Authority | 3. | Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co. (1860) 5 H & N 679 |
| iv. | Necessity | 4. | Kirk v. Gregory (1876) 1 Ex. D. 55 |
Match List-I with List-II\[\begin{array}{|c|c|} \hline \textbf{Provision} & \textbf{Case Law} \\ \hline \text{(A) Strict Liability} & \text{(1) Ryland v. Fletcher} \\ \hline \text{(B) Absolute Liability} & \text{(II) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India} \\ \hline \text{(C) Negligence} & \text{(III) Nicholas v. Marsland} \\ \hline \text{(D) Act of God} & \text{(IV) MCD v. Subhagwanti} \\ \hline \end{array}\]
| I. Arbitration of excepted matters | 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 |
| II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses | 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 |
| III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz | 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 |
| IV. Arbitrability of fraud | 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 |
| Offenses | Sections |
| (A) Voyeurism | (1) Section 77 |
| (B) Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman | (2) Section 79 |
| (C) Stalking | (3) Section 75 |
| (D) Sexual Harassment | (4) Section 78 |