Read Time: 05 minutes
Court highlighted that the speculative nature of the claims in the article carried financial implications and potentially tarnished Zee's reputation, particularly given SEBI's lack of definitive findings on the matter.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal of Bloomberg Television Production (Bloomberg) challenging an ex parte interim order. The order directed Bloomberg to remove a defamatory article published on their website titled “India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee”.
The bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur held, “Unless there is a grave urgency shown as to entertain an appeal against an ex-parte ad-interim order, an appeal is not maintainable either under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act against an ex- parte ad-interim order”.
Represented by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Jayant Mehta, the appellants argued that Bloomberg is a registered media publication committed to ethical reporting. They asserted that the article underwent rigorous research and validation from credible sources. Moreover, they claimed to have reached out to the Respondent for comment, showcasing their dedication to journalistic integrity.
Contrarily, the respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, contended that the article was defamatory and had adverse economic repercussions on their company.
The article, delving into the Zee-Sony merger and a SEBI investigation involving the respondent, aimed for factual accuracy and journalistic integrity. However, court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Bloomberg in response to the respondent's plea.
The high court noted the principles governing appellate court intervention in interlocutory injunctions granted by the trial court. It observed that the ex-parte ad-interim injunction was justified based on the alleged defamatory nature of the material.
Court reiterated that appeals against ex-parte ad-interim orders are not maintainable unless grave urgency is demonstrated. The bench reiterated that “it will not be appropriate for the Appellate Court to substitute its own discretion differently from the discretion exercised by the Court of first jurisdiction” while referring to the case of Wander Ltd & Anr vs Antox India Pvt. Ltd [1990 Supp SCC 727].
Court emphasized that the impugned order was passed after due consideration of relevant factors before granting the injunction, and the subject matter of the suit was yet to undergo final adjudication.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd & Ors v Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Please Login or Register
