Bombay High Court
Trichur N. Subramanian vs India Literacy Mission on 19 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:15904
k 1/3 3 ial 23224.25 in s os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.23224 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO.238 OF 2025
Trichur N. Subramanian ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Trichur N. Subramanian ....Plaintiff
V/S
India Literacy Mission & Ors. ....Defendants
_________
Mr. D.J. Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rubin Vakil i/b
M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for the Applicant/Plaintiff.
Mr. Subodh Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pushpvijay Kanoji for
Defendant No.1.
Mr. Arun Unnikrishnan with Ms. Urvi Gulechha i/b M/s. Jadeja &
Satiya for Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6.
Mr. Arup Dasgupta with Ms. Prapti Bhadra i/b M/s. Jhangiani Narula &
Associates for Defendant Nos.16 and 17.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 19 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C.:
1. The Suit is filed by Plaintiff, who is a Senior Advocate designated by this Court in 2005 against Defendants for publishing and disseminating notice dated 3 June 2025 and related communications, which the Plaintiff perceives to be highly defamative.
2. When the Suit was moved for ad-interim relief, this Court recorded statements on behalf of Defendant Nos.1, 2 to 4, 16 and 17 that those katkam Page No. 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 23:41:38 ::: k 2/3 3 ial 23224.25 in s os.doc Defendants would not publish and/or communicate defamatory allegations/statements of like contents in the impugned notice at Exhibit-B to the Plaint. The said interim arrangement granted vide order dated 7 August 2025 continues to operate till date.
3. Now Affidavits-in-Reply have been filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1, 2 to 4, 6, 16 and 17. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 to 15 have been served not only with notices in the Interim Application but they have also served with the ad-interim order passed on 7 August 2025. However, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 15.
4. In the Affidavits-in-Reply filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 to 4, 16 and 17, specific statements are made, without prejudice to rights and contentions, that the Interim Application be made absolute against the said Defendants by continuing the statement made on 7 August 2025. So far as Defendant No.6 is concerned, though no such statement is made in the Affidavits-in-Reply, the learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.6 orally submits that Defendant No.6 does not propose to make any defamatory statement against the Plaintiff during pendency of the Suit including the statements made in Exhibit B. Qua Defendant Nos.5 and 7 to 15, this Court has already granted ad-interim injunction, which deserves to be made absolute during pendency of suit on account of failure on the part of these Defendants to oppose the Interim Application.
5. Accordingly, the arrangement erected in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the ad-interim order dated 7 August 2025 shall continue to operate as interim order against all Defendants during pendency of the Suit.katkam Page No. 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 23:41:38 :::
k 3/3 3 ial 23224.25 in s os.doc
6. Plaintiff is granted liberty to press for prayer clause (b) in the Interim Application by filing a separate Application, if considered necessary. Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date:
2025.09.22 13:22:16 +0530 katkam Page No. 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 23:41:38 :::