Bombay High Court
Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi vs Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh And Ors on 17 November, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
IAL.31487.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31487 OF 2025
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 31483 OF 2025
Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi Applicant /
.. Plaintiff
Versus
Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh and Ors. .. Defendants
....................
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat,
Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla, Mr. Rahul Jain, Mr. Ishwar Ahuja, Ms.
Rukshin Ghiara, Mr. Yash Dethe, Advocates i/by Alpha Chambers
for Plaintiff in Suit and Applicant in Interim Application (L)
No.31487 of 2025.
Mr. Gauraj Shah, Advocate for Defendant No.1.
Mr. Hassnian Kazi a/w. Ms. Shraddha Vavhal, Advocates for
Defendant No.2.
Mr. Ameya Gokhale a/w. Mr. Rishabh Jaisani, Mr. Abhishek
Mookherjee and Harit Lakhani, Advocates i/by Shardul Amarchand
Mangaldas, Advocates for Defendant No.3.
Ms. Amishi Sodani, Advocate i/by Ms. Charu Shukla, Advocate for
Defendant No.4.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Defendant No.1; Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Defendant No.2; Mr. Gokhale, learned Advocate for Defendant No.3 and Ms. Sodani, learned Advocate for Defendant No.4. Interim Application (L) No.31487 of 2025 is disposed of by this order.
1 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc
2. On 16.10.2025, I heard Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Plaintiff / Applicant and Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for Defendant No.1 in Interim Application (L) No.31487 of 2025. At the outset, it is seen that there is complete chaos in respect of the pleadings which are filed by the respective parties. None of the pleadings are paginated in seriatim so as to have any semblance whatsoever, rather every pleading that is filed is numbered from Sr. No.1 onwards. This also includes the Suit proceedings itself. I have impressed upon the learned Advocates appearing in the matter to put their house in order as I have encountered serious difficulty in negotiating with the papers and pleadings in the present case.
3. There are the following proceedings which can be seen from various files and record:-
3.1. Suit (L) No.31483 of 2025 is filed for defamation and other reliefs. In that Suit, Interim Application (L) No.31487 of 2025 has been filed for interim reliefs. It has been argued before me fully.
There is another Interim Application (L) No.35610 of 2025 which seeks amendment to the written statement filed by Defendant No.2 which is pending. That has not been pressed before me.
4. By order dated 16.10.2025, this Court passed ad-interim order and granted leave to amend the plaint in terms of draft 2 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc amendment tendered in Court and Plaintiff's Suit was held to be within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Original Defendant Nos.4 and 6 i.e. Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and YouTube LLC have been deleted as per order dated 16.10.2025. The numbers of the Defendants thereafter have been changed. Original Defendant No.11 is John Doe. Original Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 were Google LLC and Meta Platform. Original Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 were News Channels.
5. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Defendant No.1 informs the Court that order dated 16.10.2025 has been challenged before the Division Bench by Defendant No.1 in Appeal which is pending. If that be so, then whether Interim Application (L) No.31487 of 2025 can be heard by me further is the question put to the parties. All parties are ad idem that dehors that that challenge the Interim Application be heard by this Court subject to the pending Appeal. Hence by consent it is heard.
6. After hearing Mr. Kamat and Mr. Shah on the previous occasion when the aforesaid details were not known to the Court, this Court passed the following order on 03.11.2025:-
"1. I have heard Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate for Defendant No.2; Mr. Gokhale, learned Advocate for Defendant No.3 and Ms. Sodani, learned Advocate for Defendant No.5 for some time.
2. Leave to amend the Interim Application is granted. Amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith in the 3 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc Department. Re-verification stands dispensed with. Copy of the amended Interim Application shall be served on Defendants forthwith.
3. Plaintiff has pressed the present Interim Application seeking urgent ad-interim relief.
4. If any Defendant wishes to file Affidavit-in-Reply / additional Affidavit-in-Reply to the amended plaint or Interim Application, they are directed to file the same by 06.11.2025 and serve copy upon Plaintiff. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before 09.11.2025.
5. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, is directed to be continued.
6. Stand over to 10th November 2025."
7. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 06.11.2025 on circulation and heard 10.11.2025, 12.11.2025 and 13.11.2025. The material put in the public domain by Defendant No.1 was perused by the Court with the able assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr. Shah and after much deliberation this Court expressed its mind to Defendant No.1 pursuant to which after taking instructions from Defendant No.1, Mr. Shah apprised the Court that without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the pending Appeal filed against the ad-interim order dated 16.10.2025 before the Appeal Court the Defendant No.1 would undertake to remove the entire impugned material objected to by the Plaintiff as appended to the Suit proceedings forthwith. This statement made by Mr. Shah on behalf of Defendant No.1 on instructions is taken as an undertaking given to the Court.
8. In that view of the matter qua Defendant No.1 no further order is required to be passed. Defendant No.1 is directed to remove 4 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc the entire offending material appended to the Suit plaint posted by her and as stated in 'Exhibit P' and 'Exhibit R-1' at page Nos.110 and 112a of the Suit plaint which are the URLs under which the said offending material has been uploaded on the social media platforms of original Defendant Nos.3 to 10. Equally a direction is passed to Original Defendant No. 11 (John Doe) to remove any of the aforesaid material forthwith if the same has been disseminated further.
9. Ms. Sodani, learned Advocate appearing for Google LLC informs the Court that if in the event Defendant No.1 does not on her own volition delete the said offending material, only then appropriate direction be passed qua the social media platforms on which the said material has been uploaded to delete the same within a time bound programme. Mr. Gokhale appearing for Meta also endorses what Ms. Sodani states. I agree with the submissions made by them and direct that if Defendant No.1 does not remove the entire offending material as appended to the Suit plaint forthwith and as depicted under the said URLs, details of which are given in 'Exhibit P' and 'Exhibit R-1' at page Nos.110 and 112a and in any event within a period of 36 hours thereafter the original Defendant Nos.3 to 11 are directed to remove the same forthwith from their platform channels within a period of 36 hours thereafter without recourse to the Court. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter qua the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 or any of the issues flagged by Defendant No.1 5 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc otherwise. Both parties can pursue their respective remedies available to them in law.
10. Needless to state that if Defendant No.1 is anguished about any of the actions of Defendant No.1, then she shall, within the realm of civility which shall be always open to Defendant No.1, agitate the said issues strictly in accordance with law without transgressing the limits of civility.
11. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the aforesaid order is passed qua Defendant No.1 in the interim while disposing of the Interim Application.
12. In view of the above while referring to the reliefs prayed for by Plaintiff in Interim Application (L) No.31487 of 2025, the said Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'a', a(iii), b, c and 'd' qua Defendant No.1.
13. In view of the statement recorded on behalf of Defendant No.1 of her Advocate Mr. Shah that she on her own volition shall remove the offending material, no further orders are required to be passed qua Defendant No.1.
14. In so far as relief against Defendant No.2 is concerned, Mr. Kamat appearing on channels has drawn my attention to the offending material uploaded on the platforms and of original Defendant Nos.3 to 6 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc 10 by Defendant No.2. At the outset, he submitted that Defendant No.2 is a political opponent of the Plaintiff which can be comprehensively gathered from reading of the material which has been uploaded by him. He would submit that though Defendant No.2 has expressed his disapproval and anguish with certain issues which are apparently flagged by him and which are within the domain of the Plaintiff, he being in a statutory responsible position, however while drawing my attention to certain excerpts, he would submit that the same are prima facie disparaging defamatory and contumacious affecting the reputation of the Plaintiff, considering his status and position in the Mahamandal and the Waqf Board.
15. With the able assistance of both the learned Advocates, I have perused the various objectionable material transcripts of which are appended to the Suit plaint and the Interim Application. My attention is drawn to the same at page Nos.81 and 83 by Mr. Kamat to contend that whatever issues that have been flagged by Defendant No.2 regarding the activities of the Mahamandal and the Waqf Board have infact been acted upon by Plaintiff in his capacity as President of the Board which is evident from the aforesaid documents appended at page Nos.81 and 83 and therefore Defendant No.2 should have no grievance.
16. He would draw my attention to the use of cuss words like 7 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc gobar, looting, traitor, gafla, corruption, ghatiyapan, chappal wale, bhrashtachari, gobar khane wale log, thekedar, begairat log, etc. attributed to the Plaintiff while naming the highest constitutional Authority namely the Prime Minister of this country and the Deputy Chief Minister in the transcripts and casting insinuations having hurt the reputation of the Plaintiff in view of his position. He would submit that use of such words in the narrative is not only derogatory or defamatory but also disparaging and leads to disharmony spoiling the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff. He would submit that Plaintiff has therefore prayed for a direction against John Doe (unknown persons) who would further disseminate and transmit the said alleged defamatory material further also.
17. The issue that I have to decide before me is that though there is a restrain and ad-interim injunction in Plaintiff's favour against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from further insinuating the Plaintiff, Mr. Kamat has vehemently argued for seeking interim relief for removal of the said defamatory / offending material which is in the public domain on the basis of the above submissions.
18. After going through the entire material and before Mr. Kazi would commence his submissions, I have impressed upon Mr. Kazi to take appropriate instructions from Defendant No.2 to remove the offending material in the narratives which have been flagged by the 8 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc Plaintiff since in my opinion they are prima facie disparaging, denigrating and defamatory in nature.
19. In so far as the grievances and issues which are otherwise flagged by Defendant No.2 with respect to the complaints that he may have against Plaintiff's action in his capacity as the President of the Waqf Board and the Haj Committee or Mahamandal and in that capacity against the decisions that he may have taken, the same are prima facie not defamatory in nature. All that they do is express his anguish and disapproval. However this Court cannot separate the wheat from the chaff in respect of each and every word, sentence and paragraph in the article, transcript, video or material uploaded. Both the learned Advocates have assisted the Court in going through the material and addressed me on the same.
20. On 12.11.2025, Mr. Kazi, learned Advocate after taking instructions from Defendant No.2 who has also been present in the Court on all hearing dates made the following submissions:-
(i) He would submit that in 'Exhibit Q' at page No.111 there are 3 URLs uploaded by Defendant No.2 on his Instagram page to which objection has been raised by Plaintiff. He would submit that in respect of URLs at Sr. Nos.1 and 2, Defendant No.2 has removed the same from the public domain and they are no more publicly available for public viewing/hearing.
9 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc He would submit that in respect of URL at Sr. No.3, there is no reference whatsoever made to the Plaintiff and therefore the same has not been removed. In response to this, Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Plaintiff has no objection since the first two URLs at 'Exhibit Q' have been removed. Regarding the third URL it is seen that there is no direct reference to the Plaintiff. Hence this URL can remain.
(ii) He would next submit that in 'Exhibit R-2' at page No.112P, there are a list of URLs which are objected thereto by Plaintiff. I have heard Mr. Kazi and Mr. Kamat, both on each of these URLs and my directions thereon are as under:-
(a) In so far as the video at Sr. No.1 at page No.112x is concerned, Mr. Kazi states that in the said transcript of the video, Defendant No.2 has aired his views with respect to corruption in the Molana Azad Mahamandal and Waqf Board without attributing any comments or motives to the Plaintiff and therefore the same is not removed. With the able assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr. Kazi, I have perused the transcript at page No.112x to 112x. The name of Plaintiff has not been stated anywhere therein. Defendant No.2 has referred to his deep anguish with respect to the functioning of the
10 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc Molana Azad Mahamandal and Waqf Board without any specific and direct attribute to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is undoubtedly connected with the working of the aforesaid two Institutions but there is nothing directly attributed to him rather names of several politicians and other office bearers have been stated therein. Prima facie, I am of view that the said transcripts at page No.112x to 112y and 112z of the video is not per se defamatory qua the Plaintiff. Hence it can remain.
(b) In so far as the video at Sr. No.2 at page No.112aa is concerned, Mr. Kazi states that Defendant No.2 has not uploaded the said video and Defendant No.2 has untagged the same so that it cannot be seen from the wall of Defendant No.2. He would submit that the said content is neither made nor posted by Defendant No.2. I have perused the transcript from page No.112aa to 112dd with the able assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr. Kazi. Prima facie, I am of the opinion after reading the same that there is substantial attribute which is defamatory in nature by directly naming the Plaintiff as also the highest constitutional body of this country i.e. the Prime Minister. In that view of the matter, the said transcript needs to be removed forthwith from the 11 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc public domain. Defendant No.2 shall remove the same forthwith and in any event within 36 hours failing which the original Defendant Nos.3 to 11 shall remove the same within a period of 36 hours thereafter from their platform / channels.
(c) In so far as URL at Sr. No.3 at page No.112ee is concerned, Mr. Kazi informs the Court that same has been removed from the public domain by Defendant No.2.
(d) In so far as URL at Sr. No.4 at page No.112hh is concerned, Mr. Kazi informs the Court that the same has been removed from the public domain by Defendant No.2.
(e) In so far as URL at Sr. No.5 at page No.112ll is concerned, Mr. Kazi states that Defendant No.2 has not uploaded the said video and Defendant No.2 has been untagged so that it cannot be seen from the wall of Defendant No.2. He would submit that the said content is neither made nor posted by Defendant No.2. I have perused the transcript of the said video from page No.112ll onwards with the able assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr. Kazi. Prima facie, after reading the same, I am 12 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc of the opinion that there is substantial attribute therein to the Plaintiff which is defamatory in nature by directly naming the Plaintiff as also the highest constitutional body of this country. In that view of the matter, the said transcript needs to be removed forthwith from the public domain. Defendant No.2 shall remove the same forthwith and in any event within 36 hours failing which the original Defendant Nos.3 to 11 shall remove the same within a period of 36 hours thereafter.
(f) In so far as URL at Sr. No.6 at page No.112nn is concerned, Mr. Kazi states that Defendant No.2 has not uploaded the said video and Defendant No.2 has been untagged so that it cannot be seen from the wall of Defendant No.2. He would submit that the said content is neither made nor posted by Defendant No.2. I have perused the transcript from page No.112ll with the able assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr. Kazi. Prima facie, after reading the same, I am of the opinion that there is substantial attribute which is prima facie defamatory in nature by directly naming the Plaintiff therein. In that view of the matter, the said transcript needs to be removed forthwith from the public domain. Defendant No.2 shall remove the same forthwith and in any event 13 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc within 36 hours failing which the original Defendant Nos.3 to 11 shall remove the same within a period of 36 hours thereafter.
(iii) He would submit that in so far as 'Exhibit R-2' is concerned, there are 7 defamatory contents alleged by Plaintiff which are taken exception to. Mr Kazi submits that Defendant No.2 has refused to remove transcript of image on page No.112qq since Plaintiff has not been named therein. I have perused the same and I am of the prima facie opinion that there is an indirect reference to Plaintiff since Plaintiff is the Chairman of the Waqf Board and the use of Vyabhichari (O;kfHkpkjh) word without substantiation is prima facie objectionable. Needless to state that it shall be open to Defendant No.2 to take appropriate action as available him in law against any of the actions of Plaintiff with respect to running of the Waqf Board strictly in accordance with law. Since there is a clear indirect reference to the Plaintiff therein, Defendant No.2 is directed to remove the same forthwith. If the same is not removed by him, the platform namely Facebook (which has been deleted) and who was the original Defendant on which it is posted is directed by this Court to remove the same within a period of three (3) days from today.
14 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc
(a) In so far as content at Sr. No.(b)(2) (page No.112rr), Sr. No(b)(3) (page No.112ss), Sr. No.(b)(4) (page No.112vv) and Sr. No.(b)(5) (page No.112yy) are concerned, Mr. Kazi informs the Court that the those contents have already been removed by Defendant No.2 adhering to the suggestions made by the Court.
(b) In so far as video and transcript at page No.112vv is concerned, Mr. Kazi informs the Court that content and reference related to the Plaintiff has been removed. However the other content regarding the allegation of scam and corruption in the Mahamandal and Waqf Board has been deleted. I have perused the material at page No.112vv and Defendant No.2 is put to strict notice to ensure that any reference to the Plaintiff directly or indirectly in the said video and transcript shall stand omitted and removed by him, if not done so. The statement made by Mr. Kazi with regard to page No.112vv stands accepted.
(c) In so far as Sr. No.(b)(6) at page No.112bbb is concerned, Mr. Kazi informs the Court that it is not the original post of Defendant No.2 and therefore he cannot remove the same. Prima facie the said content is per se 15 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc defamatory after reading the same and the same is directed to be removed by the person who has posted it and in that view there shall be an order against Original Defendant No.11 (John Doe) to remove the same. In the event if the same is not removed forthwith within 36 hours after passing of this order, the platform / channel on which the same has been posted namely original Defendant Nos.3 to 10 are directed to remove the same within 36 hours thereafter.
(d) In so far as page No.112c is concerned, Mr. Kazi would submit that the same has not been posted by Defendant No.2 but by Defendant No.1. In view of the order passed herein above qua Defendant No.1, no further order is required to be passed with reference to this item.
(iv) Mr. Kazi would submit that in so far as Youtube video URL at 'Exhibit G' -page No.80 to the Suit plaint is concerned, the said Youtube video link has been removed by Defendant No.2 from the public domain.
(v) Mr. Kazi would submit that in so far as alleged defamatory materials at page No.29d and page No.29e of the Suit plaint are concerned, general statements are made with respect to 16 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc corruption in the Mahamandal and Waqf Board without any attributes to the Plaintiff. After reading the same, I opine that these articles per se are not defamatory directly or indirectly. Hence they can remain.
(vi) Mr. Kazi would submit that in so far as alleged defamatory material at page No.79 is concerned, Defendant No.2 has not uploaded the same and it has been further disseminated by others. Prima facie reading the content of 'Exhibit F' - page No.79, it is seen that the said material is per se defamatory directly naming the Plaintiff and directly attributing insinuations to him and it is therefore per se defamatory. Since Defendant No.2 has expressed his inability to remove the same as it has not been posted by him there shall be an order against Defendant No.11 (John Doe) i.e. the person who has posted / further disseminated that content to remove it forthwith and in any event within 36 hours after passing of this order. However if the same is not removed, then the platform / channel on which the said content has been uploaded namely the platforms of original Defendant Nos.3 to 10 are directed by this Court to remove the same within a period of three (3) thereafter.
(vii) He would submit that in so far as the content of 'Exhibit G' -
17 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc page No.80 is concerned, the same has already been removed by Defendant No.2. Hence, no further directions are required to be passed.
21. The social media platforms namely Defendant Nos.3 and 4 duly represented by Mr. Gokhale and Ms. Sodani have addressed the Court submissions. They both have stated that if this Hon'ble Court finds it necessary to issue any order directing the said platforms to restrict the content in accordance with the interim relief prayed for by the Plaintiff, such an order should in the first instance be issued against the uploaders of the content including Defendant Nos.1 and 2 or any other person who has further disseminated the said content and only after they fail to take it down within a stipulated timeline the Court may direct the concerned platforms to take action against the content in terms of prayer clause 'd' of the Interim Application. I have taken note of these submissions in this order and passed directions accordingly.
22. In so far as prayer clause 'e' is concerned, both the Defendants have raised a strong objection since granting such relief would be contrary to the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and both Defendants submit that proactive monitoring of such content is impermissible as the platforms have duty towards the same. Both the learned Advocates appearing for the said platforms would 18 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc submit that they duly discharge their due diligence obligations under the Information Technology Act, but are mere platforms where videos and contents can be uploaded and accessed on internet on an 'as is' basis.
23. Both the learned Advocates have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bloomberg Television Vs. Zee Entertainment, SLP (c) No.6696 of 2024, the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jitendra Chouksey and Anr. Vs. Aman Duggal and Ors. passed in CS(OS) No.317 of 2022 dated 30.05.2022 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Vs. Ani Media Private Limited and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.5455 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025 contending that broad orders directing taking down of defamatory content without identification of specific content are not capable of being specifically implemented since there is no clarity on who will decide as to whether what is reported is defamatory or not. Both the learned Advocates have therefore persuaded the Court to pass specific orders.
24. Considering that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have cooperated with the Court by adhering to the suggestions made by the Court largely as noted herein above with respect to the alleged defamatory content, the aforesaid directions given by the Court shall be implemented forthwith as directed hereinabove by the Defendants.
19 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc
25. In the present case, original Defendant Nos.3 to 10 are the media platforms / channels whereas Defendant No.11 is John Doe (unknown persons) who are alleged to have circulated some of the aforementioned defamatory statements.
26. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for Plaintiff and the various Defendants before me, the Court has reached the above conclusion in respect of the content which Defendant No.2 has left if for the Court to decide and appropriate directions have therefore been given for the parties to follow.
27. Considering the above noted facts and circumstances and the directions passed herein above, there shall be an order of interim relief in terms of prayer clauses 'a', 'a(iii)', 'b', 'c' and 'd' in the Interim Application subject to the above directions by the Court.
28. Interim Application is disposed.
29. In the event if Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No.2 fail to take down / remove offending material as agreed on or as per the above directions after passing of this order, Plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach Defendant Nos.3 to 7 i.e. platforms / channels on which the said contents have been uploaded as directed and in that eventuality the said platforms shall take down the said material URLs / posts / videos as directed herein above within a period of 36 hours thereafter.
20 of 21 ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 ::: IAL.31487.2025.doc
30. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be made within a period of two weeks by filing an Affidavit of compliance within a period of three (3) days thereafter.
31. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court of Bombay.
32. Needless to state that the observations made herein above are prima facie for the consideration of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Plaintiff.
33. List the Suit on Board on 15th December 2025.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.11.17
11:37:50 +0530
21 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 20:39:53 :::