Bombay High Court
House Of Abhinandan Lodha vs Atulyam Infratech Private Limited on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:8743
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA
MAHESH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.04.09
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
11:06:35
+0530 INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11640 OF 2026
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 11542 OF 2026
House of Abhinandan Lodha Private Limited ... Applicant /
Orig. Plaintiff
Versus
Atulyam Infratech Private Limited and ors. ... Defendants
-----
Mr. Aspi Chinoy a/w. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Rashid Boatwalla,
Ms. Lipsa Unandkat, Mr. Pranav Kethineni i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal &
Co. for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Rishabh Jaisani a/w. Mr. Harli Lakhani i/b. Shardul Amarchand
Mangaldas & Co. for Defendant No. 4.
-----
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 8th APRIL 2026 P.C.
1. At the outset, Mr. Chinoy, Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff tendered an affidavit of service to prove service upon Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The same is taken on record. Defendants are served, despite which none have appeared.
2. The matter is on board today in the backdrop of the Order dated 1st April, 2026, by which this Court had, after noting the per se defamatory statements attributed to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, granted Page 1 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC the Applicant / Plaintiff ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(iii) of the Interim Application. Prayer clause (iii) reads thus:
"iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an Order and Injunction, restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either by themselves or through their employees, agents, officers, assign, representatives or associates from further publishing any defamatory material in respect of the Applicant in any manner and on any forum and through any form of media whatsoever and from further making any defamatory/offending statements/letters/ correspondences against the Applicant with regard to the subject matter of the defamatory publications."
3. Mr. Chinoy then, invited my attention to the Order dated 1st April 2026 to point out that this Court on that date, though satisfied that the offending post was per se defamatory did not grant ad interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (iv) but adjourned the matter to today after specifically directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to remain personally present in Court today. However, as already noted above, despite being duly served, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are neither present personally nor represented by an advocate. It is thus that Mr. Chinoy has today pressed for further ad interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (iv), which read thus:.
"(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Page 2 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC Hon'ble Court be pleased issue an order and injunction against the Defendants, directing the Defendants to forthwith remove/retract/withdraw the defamatory post at Exhibit 'I' of the Plaint published on LinkedIn and on all forms of print and online media used and maintained by the Defendants.
(iv) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Defendant No.4 to suspend / take down the specific URL containing the defamatory post at Exhibit - 'I' of the Plaint."
4. Mr. Chinoy, then for context, submitted that the Plaintiff had terminated the appointment of Defendant No. 1 as its sub-broker, which led Defendant No. 1 to commence pre-institution mediation proceedings before the Delhi High Court since it was the contention of Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiff owed Defendant No. 1, an amount of Rs. 5 crores as brokerage fees. He thus submitted, without in any manner admitting, that at the very highest, Defendant No. 1 would have a monetary claim against the Plaintiff and nothing else.
5. Mr. Chinoy then pointed out that despite the above, Defendant No. 1 had posted statements on LinkedIn, which were per se defamatory of the Plaintiff. He invited my attention to the LinkedIn post which is to be found at page 126 of the Plaint, from which he pointed out the following statements, amongst others, which were per se defamatory Page 3 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC of the Plaintiff, (i) "one of the Biggest Real Estate Scams of Recent Times - HOABL (House of Abhinandan Lodha)", (ii) "1st Fraudulent Activity - Misleading Brand Association" and (iii) "And Now -The Biggest Fraud".
6. Mr. Chinoy then pointed out that the offending post had garnered several responses, many of which were also per se defamatory of the Plaintiff. What he, however, took pains to point out was that several of these responses were either by Defendant No. 1 and/or by persons closely associated with Defendant No. 1 since the name of Defendant No. 1 appeared above the name of the individuals replying to the offending post. From the responses, he pointed out that the Plaintiff was referred to as "fraud-HOABL" and "Biggest Scam Fraud Company".
7. Basis the above, he submitted that the statements made about the Plaintiff were per se defamatory and entirely unjustified, reiterating that even assuming, without accepting, that Defendant No. 1 had any claim against the Plaintiff, it was only a monetary claim and nothing more. It was thus that Mr. Chinoy has today pressed for further ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (iv) since he points out that the offending post not only continues to remain in the public domain but also keeps garnering additional responses apart from the Page 4 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC risk of the same being further disseminated on social and other media.
8. Having heard Mr. Chinoy and having considered the material which is placed before me, I have no hesitation in holding that what is pointed out to me from the LinkedIn post of Defendant No. 1 and some of the responses thereto are per se defamatory. Also, and importantly, this Court had, vide its Order dated 1st April 2026, after noting the per se defamatory statements specifically directed Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, to remain present in Court, despite which the said Defendants are today not present. This, in my view, speaks volumes and only compounds the conduct of these Defendants.
9. Hence, given that I am satisfied that the offending post contains per se defamatory material against the Plaintiff and also given the fact that despite the specific order passed by this Court Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are today not present to oppose the Application, I find that the Plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of further ad interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (iv) reproduced above.
10. Learned Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 4 (LinkedIn Corporation) requests the Court to clarify that reference to the Defendants in the prayer clause shall mean Defendant Nos 1 to 3 and not Defendant No. 4. Mr Chinoy submits that this is a typographical Page 5 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::
901.OS.IAL.11640.2026.DOC error. Hence, it is clarified that in prayer clause (i) reference to the Defendants shall mean Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 4 also then submitted that to facilitate the removal of the offending LinkedIn Post, the Plaintiff would have to provide Defendant No. 4 with the URL of the specific link of the offending post that is uploaded and annexed at Exhibit "I" to the Interim Application. Mr. Chinoy submitted that it will be done forthwith.
12. Stand over to 16th April 2026.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] Page 6 of 6 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:47:31 :::