Read Time: 11 minutes
Manoj Manchu, embroiled in a family dispute with his father and brother, published defamatory tweets on December 9 and 13, 2024, accusing Vinay Maheshwari of manipulation and fabrication without any supporting evidence. These accusations were amplified by various digital media platforms and social media users, depicting Maheshwari as a pivotal figure in the Manchu family dispute.
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in a defamation suit filed by Vinay Maheshwari against Manoj Manchu for publishing defamatory tweets without any supporting evidence.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Defendant No. 1, or anyone acting on its behalf, is temporarily restrained from making, posting, tweeting, reposting, sharing, or sending any defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff and his family on any social media platform, messenger service, or public forum”.
Manoj Manchu alleged that Maheshwari fabricated false narratives, made manipulative statements, and engaged in financial misconduct, particularly concerning property disputes within the family. Maheshwari refuted these claims as baseless and asserted they were intended to tarnish his reputation.
Articles published by ‘GreatAndhra.com’ alleged financial manipulation by Maheshwari within Mohan Babu's institutions, collaboration with Manchu Vishnu to sideline Manoj, and exploitation of Manoj's marital issues for personal gain—claims that lacked supporting evidence. ‘IndiaGlitz’ published a report on December 10, 2024, alleging Maheshwari’s mention in a police complaint and linking him to physical confrontations and property disputes within the Manchu family. Additionally, Google/YouTube hosted videos propagating defamatory narratives, such as “Who is Vinay Maheshwari? Manchu Family Controversy,” which included baseless allegations of financial irregularities and manipulation.
Several digital media outlets, including ABP Network Pvt. Ltd., HT Media Limited, Onmanorama, and TeluguOne, were accused of publishing defamatory content associating Maheshwari with the family conflict. These publications reportedly included unverified claims of financial misconduct and false narratives, severely damaging Maheshwari’s professional reputation.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, representing Maheshwari, emphasized his client’s distinguished career and reputation, cultivated over decades. It was argued that the defamatory tweets from December 9 and 13, 2024, posted on Social Media platforms, accused Maheshwari of financial misconduct and unwarranted interference in Manchu’s family matters without any factual basis, thereby harming his reputation.
Senior Advocate Deepak argued that the dissemination of defamatory material misled the public, caused irreparable harm to Maheshwari’s reputation, and necessitated immediate judicial intervention. A prima facie case was established for granting an ‘ex parte’ ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from publishing defamatory content and to mandate the removal of existing libelous material. The balance of convenience favored Maheshwari, as he was not involved in the family disputes yet faced significant reputational harm that could not be monetarily compensated.
Advocate Aditya Gupta, appearing for Google LLC, contended that the platform merely hosted user-generated content and did not create, endorse, or verify it. Imposing liability on Google for third-party content, it was argued, would undermine free expression and open discourse. The platform expressed its willingness to remove offensive material upon receiving a valid complaint.
Advocate Amit Bajaj, representing HT Media Ltd., argued that its articles were based on publicly available information and journalistic efforts to cover a matter of public interest. The Defendant denied any malicious intent and maintained that Maheshwari was given ample opportunity to present his version of events. HT Media also expressed willingness to publish Maheshwari’s response to ensure balanced reporting.
The central issue was “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from publishing, disseminating, or circulating defamatory content against the Plaintiff, given the allegations made by Defendant No.1 and the subsequent propagation of libelous material by other Defendants, which purportedly tarnish the Plaintiff's reputation and goodwill?”.
Citing the Supreme Court case of Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh, the court emphasized the criteria for granting a temporary injunction including (1) the existence of a prima facie case, (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages, and (3) the balance of convenience favoring the applicant.
Additionally, the court noted that Injunctions served as preventive relief to preserve the subject matter in status quo and prevent potential injury. Maheshwari was required to demonstrate a prima facie case of rights infringement, requiring the court’s intervention. The court then weighed the competing harms to determine whether to maintain the status quo or grant a temporary injunction.
Further, the court needed to ascertain whether Maheshwari had established a prima facie defamation case, justifying an injunction to restrain the Defendants from disseminating defamatory content. In defamation cases, the court observed that interim injunctions required the court to examine whether the statement was prima facie defamatory, false, and unsupported by defenses such as truth, fair comment, or privilege. The intention to disseminate the defamatory content and the harm caused to Maheshwari’s reputation was also considered, particularly when public figures were involved.
The court noted that the articles published in GreatAndhra.com alleged financial mismanagement and divisive behavior by Maheshwari. IndiaGlitz published similar allegations, implicating Maheshwari in financial irregularities and violent disputes. Both publications relied on speculative sources and lacked corroboration, portraying Maheshwari negatively and damaging his professional credibility and personal reputation.
The court concluded that the collective actions of the Defendants prima facie created a sustained defamatory narrative against Maheshwari, potentially causing irreparable harm. However, specific reliefs depended on the facts, evidence, and Maheshwari’s compliance with procedural requirements, such as providing translations and identifying individuals responsible for defamatory content.
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Rohit Jain, Avinash Kumar Sharma, Aslam Ahmad, Neha Khanduri and Komal SharmaFor Google LLC: Advocates Aditya Gupta and Asavari JainFor HT Media: Advocate Amit BajajCase Title: Vinay Maheshwari v Manoj Manchu (2024:DHC:10009)
Please Login or Register
