claimed that respondent No.1 had deliberately sent
defamatory emails to various bodies with the sole objective to tarnish the
image of the appellant Company ... claims in exchange of
emails with the appellant and with its clients. The first email which is
claimed to be defamatory and addressed
They had started initial campaign of sending not only
defamatory email but full of falsity only for the sole reason that
wrongful loss is caused ... police about the closure of the complaint
still the defamatory emails were send by them alongwith other
accused person by impersonating the email
shock, reading the contents of the defamatory
communication. Further, on 25.07.2023, Respondent No. 3 circulated a
defamatory email stating all powers of Appellant ... would be important to note here that post the
defamatory emails, Appellant No. 1 participated in subsequent Board
Meetings as Executive Director and CEO. That
defendant no.1 to desist from writing such false and defamatory
emails against it;
(o) On 23.11.2011, the defendant no.1, however, wrote a
defamatory ... defendant no.1 wrote yet another
defamatory email against the plaintiff to various news
channels, members of the press and police departments;
(r) The cause
just or lawful ground for the same. The said
defamatory emails came to the knowledge of the
colleagues of the complainant; that accused encroached ... under Section 500 IPC that he emailed
defamatory mail to the company of the complainant. The
defamatory email is exhibited
Before the disposal of the said
complaint, revisionists had sent certain
defamatory emails to
respondent, its officials and leading news outlets. The said
emails bear ... Bank Ltd. page no. 4 of 6
aggrieved on account of
defamatory email dated 18.04.2013 sent from
email ID
[email protected] to respondent bank
defendant has publicly
defamed him by deliberately disseminating the defamatory email to
CS No. 160/2025 Avinash Razdan Bindra Vs. Ranjit Kumar Jha Page ... give his written apology
through email to the plaintiff and recipients of email dated
01.02.2025 regarding withdrawal of his defamatory remarks
made against the plaintiff
false and frivolous mails. It is contended that
Respondent No. 3 wrote emails on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2
with their knowledge ... that Respondents, in complete defiance of order
dated 30.04.2019, again sent defamatory emails on 15.06.2020 to the
petitioner bank and on this occasion even made
site under the
name and style "www.jaypolychem.org" containing defamatory and
malicious contents against the Company and its Directors. That web
site ... accused persons sent various emails from fake email accounts to
many of the customers of the Company. The said defamatory
emails were made with
reconciliation. He further reasserted the fact
of communication with exemployees, defamatory emails,
'Facebook' requests and so on. He also deposed about
