Moneylife, Sucheta Dalal Move Delhi Court Against Ex Parte Takedown Order In Sterling Biotech Fraud Coverage

The appeal, filed by Moneywise Media LLP, came up before District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena at the Tis Hazari Courts.

The court issued notice in the plea and posted the matter for further hearing on April 29 after submissions were made seeking a stay on the impugned order.

The challenge arises from an ex parte ad-interim injunction passed by a senior civil judge, which restrained Google LLC, Meta Platforms and unknown entities from publishing or hosting content concerning Sandesara and his family in connection with the alleged fraud case. The trial court had also directed the platforms to de-index and remove URLs of the impugned material from search results during the pendency of the defamation suit, even extending to content not specifically identified in the plaint. While granting relief, the court had observed that media must maintain accuracy and objectivity and avoid sensationalism in reporting.

In its appeal, Moneylife contended that it was never served with notice of the proceedings despite its details being publicly available, and that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It argued that the sweeping nature of the directions amounted to a blanket ex parte injunction that effectively restrains reporting and criticism on a matter of public importance. The plea further stated that such an order, passed without hearing affected parties, is legally unsustainable and has the effect of choking journalistic expression by directing takedown of both existing and unidentified future content.

Separately, Sucheta Dalal has also challenged the same order, submitting that she was not even impleaded as a defendant in the original suit despite her content being covered by the injunction. Her plea states that the order targets multiple articles and a video published on her platforms and alleges that the plaintiff failed to disclose material particulars and did not identify the publisher despite such information being available in the public domain. She has further contended that the impugned content does not directly refer to Manoj Sandesara but mentions the “Sandesara family” more broadly, and therefore lacks a direct cause of action for defamation. According to her, the publications constitute fair comment on matters of public interest and were undertaken with due diligence.

The original suit was filed by Sandesara seeking damages and removal of allegedly defamatory content. His counsel had urged for urgent interim relief, arguing that continued circulation of such material would cause irreparable harm to his reputation. Accepting the submissions, the trial court directed removal and de-indexing of the content within a short timeframe.

The District Court has now issued notice to the respondents and will examine the legality and scope of the ex parte injunction on April 29.