Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from alleged defamatory statements made by the defendant, a sitting cabinet minister and national spokesperson of the Nationalist Congress Party, against the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff, a retired senior police inspector, claimed that the defendant published a series of tweets, social media posts, and press conference remarks containing false and malicious imputations. These statements included allegations about the plaintiff's son, Sameer Wankhede, who was then Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau, and other family members, suggesting involvement in illegal activities, misrepresentation of caste, and links to drug offenders. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was motivated by a personal vendetta because his son-in-law had been arrested by the NCB in a drugs case. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 29 October 2021, but when the defendant continued his statements, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the remarks were defamatory, a permanent injunction, and damages of Rs. 1.25 crore. Along with the suit, an interim application was filed seeking various interim reliefs. At the hearing, the plaintiff pressed only for an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause 5(c), which sought to restrain the defendant from publishing any defamatory material against the plaintiff and his family members in any media, including electronic and social media, pending disposal of the interim application. The defendant filed an affidavit-in-reply, raising preliminary objections including that the suit was filed in a representative capacity without compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the adult family members had not initiated independent proceedings. The defendant also claimed to possess documentary evidence supporting his statements, which the plaintiff had not controverted. The court heard arguments from Senior Advocates Mr. Arshad Shaikh for the plaintiff and Mr. Atul Damle for the defendant on 12 and 17 November 2021, and reserved the order. The order was pronounced on 21 November 2021.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing defamatory content pending hearing and final disposal of the interim application
Law Points
- defamation
- civil defamation
- ad-interim injunction
- interim relief
- representative suit
- Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- tortious liability
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (11) 52
Interim Application (L) No. 25975 of 2021 in Suit (L) No. 25974 of 2021
Arshad Shaikh, Divakar Rai, R. S. Rane, Bhavika Solanki, Nitin Rai, Atul Damle, Ramesh Dube Patil, Kunal Damle, Rajesh Tekale, Ashish Gaikwad, Anandrao Kate, Rushikesh Sable, Komal Bhoir
Dhyandev Kachruji Wankhede
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil defamation suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and damages for defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff and his family.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought ad-interim injunction restraining defendant from publishing any defamatory content against plaintiff and his family.
Filing Reason
Defendant, a cabinet minister and father-in-law of a person arrested by plaintiff's son (an NCB officer), allegedly made defamatory tweets and statements in media to malign the plaintiff and his family.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an ad-interim injunction?
Whether the suit is maintainable as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Whether the defendant's statements are prima facie defamatory?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that defendant's tweets and media statements were defamatory and false, motivated by malafide intent to pressurize plaintiff's son; plaintiff's reputation and that of his family were harmed.
Defendant argued that suit was not maintainable as representative suit without compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; defendant had documentary evidence supporting his statements; plaintiff did not controvert evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
At the outset Mr. Shaikh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff clarified that at this stage the Plaintiff is only pressing for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 5 (c) of the Interim Application.
Fletcher Patel seen in this picture, with someone who he calls ‘My Lady Don’. Who is this ‘Lady Don’?
Sameer Wankhede has accepted the fact that he had visited Maldives but he denies the visit to Dubai. Here is the proof of his visit to Dubai with his sister.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit (L) No. 25974 of 2021 along with Interim Application (L) No. 25975 of 2021. Defendant filed affidavit-in-reply on 09/11/2021. Heard arguments on 12/11/2021 and 17/11/2021, reserved for order, pronounced on 21/11/2021.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 8
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
