Court Permits Filing of Additional Evidence and Video Recordings; Defamation Suit to Proceed with Defendants' Defense
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, addressed a civil suit involving alleged defamation against the plaintiffs, Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy and others, by Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited and additional defendants. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent further defamatory publications and posts concerning alleged misconduct in the procurement of ghee for the revered Tirumala Temple.
The court examined applications filed by the plaintiffs under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, allowing the submission of additional documents and impugned video recordings. These submissions aim to support the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants, who are accused of publishing defamatory content regarding the plaintiffs' roles in the procurement of temple supplies.
The plaintiffs, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Dayan Krishnan, argued that the defamatory statements were made without factual basis and amidst ongoing investigations into the Tirumala laddu adulteration case. The plaintiffs contended that such publications could harm their reputation and sought an immediate ex-parte ad interim injunction to restrain further defamatory content.
However, the court, citing the Supreme Court's standards on granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions, declined to issue an immediate injunction. Justice Bansal emphasized the necessity of allowing the defendants an opportunity to present their defense before any injunction could be considered. The court's decision aligns with the legal principle that such injunctions are reserved for exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
Despite denying the immediate injunction, the court clarified that any future publications or posts made after the date of the order would be subject to legal consequences. The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 29, 2026, during which further proceedings will continue, including the submission of written statements by the defendants and potential replications by the plaintiffs.
Bottom Line:
Filing of additional documents, exemptions, and permission to file impugned videos through pen drive allowed in accordance with provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
