Moneylife Challenges Delhi Court’s Takedown Order In Sterling Biotech Fraud Coverage

District Judge Sunil Choudhary of the Tis Hazari Courts heard the appeal and recorded an undertaking on behalf of Sandesara that no further takedown requests would be pursued for the time being.

"Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 gives undertaking that respondent no.1 shall not request for further take down in terms of the order dated 16.05.2026 passed by the Ld. trial court in CS No.459/26 title as ‘Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara vs. Google LLC & Ors regarding the articles / videos / or any other material which is already available on the internet till next date of hearing," the Judge said.

The matter has now been listed for hearing on July 14.

The appeal challenges a May 16 order passed by a senior civil judge in a suit filed by Sandesara against Google LLC and others.

The impugned order restrained Moneylife from publishing, republishing or circulating content relating to Sandesara and his family in connection with Sterling Biotech Limited and the alleged bank fraud case. It also directed de-indexing, de-listing and de-referencing of specified URLs as well as “such other links not known to the Plaintiff”.

In its appeal, Moneylife argued that the order was excessively broad and had a direct chilling effect on journalistic reporting. The portal contended that the directions violated its fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. According to the plea, the order “effectively chokes” reporting, criticism and publication concerning Sandesara, his family and the Sterling Biotech matter.

The challenged content includes reports and videos published between 2019 and 2026 concerning Enforcement Directorate proceedings, fugitive economic offender actions, debt settlement proposals and related developments linked to the Sterling Biotech investigation.

Moneylife further argued that Indian law does not recognise “dynamic injunctions” in defamation matters involving the press. It submitted that the trial court failed to apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bloomberg Television Production Services India v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises governing pre-trial injunctions in defamation disputes.

The portal also contended that the trial court had failed to identify which specific statements were allegedly defamatory, false or malicious.

The Sterling Biotech case arose from allegations of a multi-crore bank fraud involving Sterling Biotech Limited and companies linked to the Sandesara family. The Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case in 2017 alleging fraud of approximately Rs. 5,383 crore involving a consortium of banks led by Andhra Bank.

The Enforcement Directorate subsequently attached Indian and overseas assets allegedly linked to the Sandesara group, with reports estimating the value of attached assets at nearly ₹9,700 crore. The ED alleged that loan funds were diverted and laundered through domestic and offshore entities.

The matter had also reached the Supreme Court, which in November 2025 agreed to drop criminal proceedings against Nitin and Chetan Sandesara subject to deposit of ₹5,100 crore as part of a settlement arrangement.

Notably, on April 30, the Court had dismissed an appeal filed by Moneywise Media LLP challenging an ex-parte interim injunction, holding that the appeal was premature and not maintainable while proceedings remain pending before the trial court.  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.