Delhi Court Dismisses Sucheta Dalal’s Plea Against Gag Order On Sandesara–Sterling Biotech Reports

District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena allowed an application filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of the appeal, ruling that the statutory framework under Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) had not been violated.

The appeal arose from an order dated April 4, 2026, passed by a Senior Civil Judge in a civil suit filed by Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara against Google LLC and others. The trial court had granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining certain publications. Moneywise Media LLP, which was not specifically named as a defendant but was described as a “John Doe/Ashok Kumar,” challenged the order, alleging that it was passed mechanically and in violation of principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem.

The appellant contended that it had been effectively targeted without being properly impleaded and argued that the injunction extended beyond the scope of the pleadings. It also claimed that the trial court failed to properly apply the three-fold test for grant of interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.

Opposing the appeal, the respondent argued that it was filed prematurely, as the application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was still pending before the trial court and had been listed within the statutory 30-day period. It was submitted that, under settled law, an appeal against an ex-parte interim order is maintainable only if the trial court fails to decide the application within the prescribed timeframe.

The District Court agreed with the respondent’s submissions, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695. The Court reiterated that an aggrieved party cannot approach an appellate court during the pendency of proceedings for grant or vacation of temporary injunction, unless there is a failure by the trial court to comply with the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A CPC.

The Court noted that in the present case, the trial court had fixed a date within 30 days of the ex-parte order for hearing the interim application, and the appellant had already entered appearance and filed its vakalatnama. Therefore, there was no procedural lapse warranting appellate intervention.

Addressing the appellant’s reliance on judgments such as Asian Hotels North Ltd. v. Exclusive Capital Ltd. and Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., the Court held that those decisions were distinguishable on facts. It observed that in Asian Hotels, the appeal was filed after expiry of the 30-day period, while in Bloomberg Television, the impugned order was found to be unreasoned and perverse, conditions not present in the current case.

On the contrary, the Court noted that the trial court’s order ran into 47 pages and appeared to have dealt with the relevant considerations for grant of interim relief.

Concluding that the statutory mandate had been duly followed and that the appellant had an adequate opportunity to contest the injunction before the trial court, the District Court held that the appeal was not maintainable at this stage.

The application seeking dismissal of the appeal was accordingly allowed, with the Court clarifying that its observations would not influence the merits of the case pending before the trial court.