sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

defamation case

Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Bombay High Court issues interim relief to Mumbai-based developer Chandiwala Enterprises, restraining Sanjay Nirupam from making defamatory communal remarks related to slum redevelopment. Temporary Relief to Developer The Bombay High Court has issued an interim injunction against Sanjay Nirupam, a leader of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) and former Congress Member of Parliament (MP) from Mumbai. Nirupam had allegedly made communal remarks defaming Chandiwala Enterprises, a Mumbai-based developer. The interim order, delivered by Justice R.I. Chagla, came in response to a plea filed by the developer alleging defamation and communal targeting. Accusations Against the Developer The dispute arose from the redevelopment of Shree Shankar Society in Malad, Mumbai. Nirupam had claimed in a letter dated 20 February 2025 and in subsequent press conferences that Muslim developers were illegally registering slums in Muslim names with the assistance of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) officials. Chandiwala Enterprises argued that these statements were: Factually baseless. Communal in nature. Intended to damage the developer’s reputation and disrupt the redevelopment project. Court’s Prima Facie Findings Justice Chagla observed that the allegations were completely false. The Court noted that only 7 out of 67 residents of Shree Shankar Society were Muslim. Therefore, the claim that Muslim developers were involved in a secret campaign, colluding with SRA officials, was prima facie false. Pre-Trial Conduct of Defendant The Court highlighted that Nirupam had ignored successive legal notices in the defamation case. Notices sent to his home were reportedly torn and returned, and he failed to respond to communications via email or WhatsApp. An advocate eventually appeared on Nirupam’s behalf to request time to record a vakalatnama. Based on these facts, the Court held that a prima facie case against Nirupam was established. Operative Portion of the Order The interim order stated: “The Defendant is restrained, by means of temporary injunction, from making or publishing any defamatory, slanderous, or libelous statements as contained in the documents annexed at Exh.A to the Affidavit dated 9th August 2025.” The Court allowed Nirupam one week to file a vakalatnama and two weeks to submit a formal reply to the defamation suit. Next Hearing and Legal Representation The next hearing is scheduled for 10 September 2025. Chandiwala Enterprises was represented by Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkades, along with advocates Cherag Balsara, Yogesh Patil, and Sanjeev Singh, instructed by Ritesh Singh. Sanjay Nirupam was represented by advocate Mahesh B. Gupte. The Court’s order emphasizes protection against communal defamation while safeguarding the reputation of developers engaged in Mumbai’s slum redevelopment projects. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Read More »

Delhi High Court Orders Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Content Targeting ANI

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Delhi High Court Orders Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Content Targeting ANI Supreme Court Issues Notice on Byju’s Insolvency Case Appeals by BCCI and Riju Raveendran Arunachal Pradesh: Exploring Its Rich Tribal Heritage, Natural Beauty, and Development Challenges JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DSA LEGAL LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT TRENTAR PRIVATE LIMITED JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UGRO CAPITAL LTD JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LIS PARTNERS MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION BY MAIMS, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT NLU DELHI PROJECT 39A Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar Sworn In as Supreme Court Judges of India Delhi High Court Orders Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Content Targeting ANI Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 1 june 2025 Delhi High Court orders Mohak Mangal to remove defamatory parts of his YouTube video targeting ANI over copyright strikes, citing reputational damage. Background: Defamation Case Filed by ANI Against Mohak Mangal On May 29, 2025, the Delhi High Court directed popular YouTuber Mohak Mangal to delete specific portions of his video titled “Dear ANI”, which criticized the news agency ANI for its handling of copyright strikes against content creators. The court responded to a defamation lawsuit filed by ANI, alleging that the video used inflammatory and defamatory language, including terms like “hafta wasooli” (extortion), “gunda raj” (rule of thugs), and “kidnap.” Court Observations and Verdict Judge Criticizes Use of Harsh Language Presiding over the case, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the video content was disparaging on its face and emphasized that such statements should have been phrased more appropriately. “Assuming ANI’s demands were unjust—how does that qualify as extortion?” the judge asked. He further questioned Mangal’s justification for using such serious accusations while choosing not to obtain proper licensing for ANI’s copyrighted content. Language Like “Mafia” and “Thugs” Under Fire The court also criticized the tone and terminology used by others named in the lawsuit. In particular, it addressed stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, who used terms like “mafia” and “thugs” in social media posts. Justice Bansal stated: “I support free speech, but calling someone ‘thugs’ or ‘mafia’ is unacceptable.” Other Defendants: Mohammed Zubair and Kunal Kamra Alt News’ Zubair Agrees to Delete Post Mohammed Zubair, co-founder of fact-checking site Alt News, who was also named in the suit for promoting the video, agreed to remove one of his posts related to the incident from X (formerly Twitter). Kunal Kamra Removes One Post, Defends Satire Kunal Kamra, known for his satirical content, agreed to take down only one of several posts. His lawyer defended Kamra’s actions, highlighting his role as a free speech advocate and satirist. ANI’s Claims: Damaged Reputation and Harassment ANI stated in its petition that the video has caused measurable harm to its goodwill, public image, and business. The agency alleged the video incited widespread online harassment and backlash. The news agency emphasized that Mohak Mangal had used ANI’s copyrighted material in monetized videos without permission, calling it a calculated attack on their brand reputation and trademarks. Key Takeaways Delhi High Court instructed Mohak Mangal to delete defamatory parts of his video targeting ANI. The video allegedly used terms like “extortion”, “thugs”, and “kidnap” to describe ANI’s actions. Other figures like Mohammed Zubair and Kunal Kamra were also asked to remove related posts. ANI claims the video caused public backlash and harmed its reputation and credibility. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach Sadalaw • May 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Delhi High Court Orders Mohak Mangal to Remove Defamatory Content Targeting ANI Read More »

Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Over Indian Army Remarks

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Over Indian Army Remarks CBI Arrests NCLT Mumbai Deputy Registrar in ₹3 Lakh Bribery Scandal INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT BJP LEGAL CELL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT OFFICE OF MRS. SANGEETA YADAV INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AERHE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION Supreme Court Upholds Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders on Verandah Construction and Green Parking, Citing No UNESCO Violation Supreme Court to Hear Plea Next Week on Jamia Nagar Demolitions in Delhi Supreme Court Upholds Arrest Stay of BJP Minister Vijay Shah in Colonel Sofiya Qureshi Case, Ends MP High Court Proceedings Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Filmmaker Akhil Marar Over Alleged Seditious Remarks Supreme Court: No Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Without Individual Threat Assessment Under UAPA Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Over Indian Army Remarks Prabhat Kumar biltoria 31 May 2025 The Allahabad High Court has dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s plea against a defamation summons related to his controversial remarks about the Indian Army. Learn the key details of the case, the political backdrop, and its legal implications. Allahabad High Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Over Indian Army Remarks Rahul Gandhi Faces Legal Setback Over Defamation Case In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, challenging a summons issued by a Lucknow court in a defamation case. The case pertains to Gandhi’s alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army during the 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. Details of the Court’s Decision Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed the plea on its merits, affirming that the legal process must continue. The original summoning order was issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alok Verma, requiring Rahul Gandhi to appear in court on March 24. What Sparked the Legal Action? Defamatory Comments About Indian Army The complaint stems from a statement made by Rahul Gandhi on December 16, 2022, referring to a clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh on December 9, 2022. Gandhi had remarked that: “Chinese soldiers are beating up Indian Army personnel in Arunachal Pradesh.” This comment, interpreted as a criticism of the Government of India’s response to Chinese aggression, was deemed insulting to the armed forces. Who Filed the Complaint? Lawyer Vivek Tiwari filed the defamation complaint on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) with a rank equivalent to that of an Army Colonel. Tiwari alleged that Gandhi’s comments were defamatory and harmed the dignity of the Indian Army. Broader Legal Context and Political Fallout Other Defamation Cases Against Rahul Gandhi Rahul Gandhi has been facing a series of legal battles over alleged defamatory statements: In January 2025, the Supreme Court of India stayed criminal defamation proceedings against him related to comments about Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister. In a 2018 speech, Gandhi referred to Shah as a “murder accused,” drawing backlash and legal action from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Navin Jha. The Supreme Court also admonished Gandhi for calling Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a key figure in Hindutva ideology, a “British collaborator.” The bench warned of suo motu contempt proceedings if similar remarks were repeated. Key Takeaways The Allahabad High Court has upheld the defamation summons against Rahul Gandhi. The case relates to his 2022 statement on Chinese troops confronting Indian soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. Legal experts see this as part of a broader pattern of litigation involving political speech. The Supreme Court of India remains involved in several other related matters. Conclusion The dismissal of Rahul Gandhi’s plea by the Allahabad High Court marks another chapter in his ongoing legal and political battles. As the 2024–2025 political landscape heats up, such cases underscore the tension between freedom of expression and accountability for public statements, especially when they involve sensitive national issues like the Indian Army. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach WazirX Hack Explained: Legal Analysis and Cryptocurrency Security Lessons from India’s Biggest Crypto Breach Sadalaw • May 30, 2025 • Case law • No Comments State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act State of West Bengal vs Union of India 2024: Supreme Court Judgment on CBI Jurisdiction and Consent Withdrawal under DSPE Act Sada Law • May 27, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Allahabad High Court Rejects Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Over Indian Army Remarks Read More »

Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Citing Mental Illness and Article 21 Right to Defense Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks Supreme Court to Hear Petition Against Two-Shift NEET PG 2025 Exam Format Next Week Delhi Judge Transferred Amid Bribery Allegations; Court Clerk Claims ACB Retaliation Plot Supreme Court Rules Cheque Dishonour Is Not a Continuing Cause for Arbitration Under Section 138 NI Act Supreme Court Urges Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases: M/S New Win Export vs A. Subramaniam (2024) Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Professor for WhatsApp Status on Article 370 and Pakistan Independence Day YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra Arrested for Espionage: No Regrets Over Leaking Info to Pakistan ISI Supreme Court Halts Discharge of Woman IAF Officer Involved in Operations Sindoor and Balakot Amid PC Denial Dispute Supreme Court Quashes Gangster Act FIR Against SHUATS VC, Cites Abuse of Legal Process Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 25 May 2025 A non-bailable warrant has been issued against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in a 2018 defamation case related to comments about Amit Shah. The case highlights ongoing legal troubles and political tensions between the Congress Party and BJP in India. Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in Defamation Case Congress MP Rahul Gandhi is facing fresh legal trouble after a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in a long-standing defamation case. The MP-MLA court in Chaibasa, Jharkhand has ordered Gandhi to appear in person on June 26, 2025. His request for exemption from personal appearance was denied by the court. The Origin of the Defamation Case The case stems from a remark made by Gandhi during the 2018 Congress plenary session, where he criticized then BJP President Amit Shah. Gandhi allegedly stated that even a person facing “charges of murder” could become the head of the BJP. This statement triggered a complaint from BJP leader Pratap Katiyar, who argued that Gandhi’s comments defamed all BJP workers. Legal Journey: From CJM Court to MP-MLA Court On July 9, 2018, Katiyar filed a defamation suit in the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court in Chaibasa. In February 2020, the case was transferred to the MP-MLA court in Ranchi following an order from the Jharkhand High Court. Later, the case was returned to the Chaibasa MP-MLA court. The magistrate took cognizance and summoned Gandhi, who also serves as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Repeated Absences and Escalation of Legal Action Despite multiple court summons, Gandhi did not appear. Initially, a bailable warrant was issued. Gandhi appealed to the Jharkhand High Court to stay the warrant, but his plea was disposed of on March 20, 2024. As the Member of Parliament from Raebareli, Gandhi filed another request for exemption from personal appearance — which was also rejected. Court Takes Firm Stand with Non-Bailable Warrant The special MP-MLA court has now taken a stricter stance, issuing a non-bailable warrant against Rahul Gandhi. This move underlines the seriousness of the court’s expectations regarding personal appearances in high-profile political defamation cases. Conclusion This case adds to the growing list of legal hurdles for Rahul Gandhi and underscores the rising political friction between the Congress and BJP. With the next hearing scheduled for June 26, all eyes will be on whether Gandhi complies with the court order. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Citing Mental Illness and Article 21 Right to Defense Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Citing Mental Illness and Article 21 Right to Defense Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Hear Petition Against Two-Shift NEET PG 2025 Exam Format Next Week Supreme Court to Hear Petition Against Two-Shift NEET PG 2025 Exam Format Next Week Sada Law • May 25, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Rahul Gandhi in 2018 Defamation Case Over Amit Shah Remarks Read More »

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Ex-IAS Probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC Cheating Case Akshay Kumar Sues Paresh Rawal for ₹25 Crore Over Hera Pheri 3 Exit Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Supreme Court’s Landmark 2023 Ruling Explained Banke Bihari Temple Devotee Petitions Supreme Court Against UP Govt’s Corridor Redevelopment Plan Supreme Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Cannot Review Its Own Decisions Under JJ Act Supreme Court Declares Kuldeep Kumar Rightful Chandigarh Mayor After Electoral Malpractice Tamil Nadu Moves Supreme Court Over Withheld Rs 2291 Crore Samagra Shiksha Funds Linked to NEP Non-Implementation Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate PRABAHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 22 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India has stayed criminal defamation proceedings against India Today Chairman Aroon Purie, citing violations of journalistic freedom during a televised debate on political developments in Bihar. Supreme Court Halts Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Aroon Purie, Chairman of the India Today Group. The case stemmed from a televised news debate focused on political shifts in Bihar, aired in 2024. Purie Defends Journalistic Freedom Purie argued that the criminal defamation case was a direct violation of journalistic freedom, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He emphasized that the complaint lacked specific allegations or defamatory imputations against him. Supreme Court Bench Grants Stay on May 19 The stay order was granted by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. The decision came after an appeal challenged the Patna High Court‘s March 24 ruling, which had upheld the summoning order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Patna. Legal Representation and Arguments Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, assisted by Hrishikesh Baruah, represented Purie. They contended that the legal action lacked merit, asserting that Purie was unfairly implicated without direct involvement or jurisdictional basis. Defamation Linked to Janata Dal (United) Debate The defamation case was triggered by a 2024 televised debate discussing internal developments within the Janata Dal (United) party. The broadcast included speculation on leadership changes involving Nitish Kumar, Tejashwi Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Lallan Singh. The conversation revolved around whether the unfolding events were a political revolt or strategic repositioning. Concerns About Selective Targeting of Media Criticism arose as the defamation complaint was filed only against India Today and its editorial leadership, while other media outlets like ABP News and The Hindu aired similar content. This raised concerns about selective targeting and unequal treatment of media platforms. Procedural Irregularities and Legal Errors The petitioner’s legal team highlighted significant procedural lapses: No investigation under Section 202 CrPC despite jurisdictional limitations. Examination conducted primarily by the complainant’s lawyer, not the magistrate, violating Section 200 CrPC. Purie was charged under conflicting accused numbers and a nonexistent provision, Section 500A IPC, showcasing judicial oversight. Supreme Court Recognizes Flaws and Grants Relief Acknowledging the procedural violations and legal irregularities, the Supreme Court granted a stay on all further proceedings against Aroon Purie. This decision is seen as a strong reaffirmation of press freedom and due process. India Today’s Legal Representation Nasser Kabir, Group General Counsel for India Today, also appeared in the case, further emphasizing the media house’s stance against the selective and flawed legal targeting. Conclusion: A Landmark Moment for Press Freedom in India The Supreme Court’s intervention in staying the criminal defamation case against Aroon Purie marks a pivotal moment in safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case highlights the growing concerns over the misuse of defamation laws to silence media voices and reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional rights. As debates around political developments and press accountability continue, this decision serves as a strong reminder that a free press is vital to a functioning democracy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Trump’s India-Pakistan Ceasefire Claim Mocked by Ex-NSA John Bolton Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Supreme Court Directs Center to Fully Implement Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Sada Law • May 22, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Aroon Purie Over Bihar Political Debate Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote