Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), Vinay Maheshwari, a prominent professional in the fields of media, entertainment, and business, sought the grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction against Telugu actor Manoj Manchu for publishing defamatory remarks about him. The Single Judge Bench, led by Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. granted the ex-parte injunction, restraining Manoj Manchu and others from making, posting, tweeting, reposting, sharing, or sending any defamatory statements concerning Vinay Maheshwari and his family.
Background
The dispute began when Manoj Manchu, caught in a family conflict with his father and brother, made defamatory accusations against Vinay Maheshwari via social media, alleging manipulation and fabrication without providing evidence. These allegations were widely disseminated by digital media platforms and social media users, tarnishing Maheshwari’s reputation and presenting him as a central figure in the family feud. The ensuing media coverage amplified these false claims, causing significant harm to Maheshwari’s professional standing and public image. As a result, Maheshwari seeks an ex-parte ad interim injunction to prevent Manoj Manchu from further spreading defamatory content that has already led to irreparable damage to his goodwill and reputation.
Issue
Whether Vinay Maheshwari is entitled to an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain Manoj Manchu from publishing, disseminating, or circulating defamatory content against him.
Analysis and Decision
Referring to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2006) 5 SCC 282, the Court observed that the essentials of granting an injunction are: (1) existence of a prima facie case; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; and (3) balance of convenience favouring the applicant. The Court then went on to determine whether a prima facie case of defamation is made out by Vinay Maheshwari , warranting an injunction.
The Court took note of R. Rajagopal v. State of TN (1994) 6 SCC 632, wherein the Supreme Court laid down the key principles to be followed while considering defamation in the context of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court highlighted that to grant an interim injunction in a defamation case, the Courts must assess whether the statement is prima-facie defamatory, false, and lacks valid defenses such as truth, fair comment, or privilege. The intention to repeat or disseminate the statement is also considered, as is the harm to Vinay’s reputation, especially for public figures whose image holds significant public value.
The Court emphasised that the widespread and lasting impact of defamatory statements must be considered in cases involving digital platforms. The plaintiff must demonstrate a prima-facie case by proving the statements or content made, published, aired, tweeted, or posted is defamatory, which was published had been viewed by a third party. Each case has to be evaluated on the basis of its own facts, circumstances and content posted, published or aired. At the same time, the Courts have to remain vigilant that the order so passed, are not infringing a person’s right of freedom of speech, thus balancing fairness, while at the same time striking a balance between freedom of speech and the right to reputation of a person.
The Court noted that the allegations made by Manoj Manchu in his tweets, portray the Vinay Maheshwari in a negative light, leading to a significant loss of goodwill and public trust. The digital media publishers, relying on anonymous sources without factual corroboration, portrayed Vinay as a central figure in the family conflict and associating him with financial misconduct, thereby harming his professional credibility and personal integrity.
The Court concluded that these allegations made by Manoj Manchu , had prima facie potential of causing irreparable harm to the Vinay Maheshwari’s professional and personal reputation, which may lead to widespread public dissemination and lasting damage to his image. Thus, he had a strong prima facie case for the grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction to prevent further harm to his reputation.
Therefore, the Court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction against Manoj Manchu, who was temporarily restrained from making, posting, tweeting, reposting, sharing, or sending any defamatory statements concerning Vinay. He was also directed to remove the defamatory posts against Vinay. The various digital media publishers were also directed to remove all articles and content implicating Vinay
The case was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for completion of pleadings on 17-02-2025.
[Vinay Maheshwari v. Manoj Manchu, CS(OS) 1008/2024, decided on 24-12-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Avinash Kumar Sharma, Mr. Aslam Ahmad, Ms. Neha Khanduri and Ms. Komal Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents: Aditya Gupta and Asavari Jain (for Google LLC), Amit Bajaj (for HT Media Ltd.)
Buy Constitution of India HERE
