New Delhi, Apr 30 A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by journalist Sucheta Dalal challenging an ex parte interim order restraining the publication of content linking businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara and his family to the alleged Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.
District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena, while hearing the plea, said the appellant had an effective remedy before the trial court, where the application for an interim injunction was still pending adjudication.
“Without going into the length and breadth of legality/merits of the impugned ex parte interim order, the court is of the view that the appellant has an opportunity to be heard before the learned trial court. The appeal is not maintainable at this stage,” the court said.
Dalal had challenged an earlier court order allowing an application filed by Sandesara seeking an interim injunction restraining websites from publishing content against him linking to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.
The interim order had restrained platforms such as Google and Meta, along with unidentified parties, from publishing or hosting content linking Sandesara and his family members to the alleged bank fraud involving Sterling Biotech.
It also directed de-indexing and removal of certain online content, including articles and a YouTube video.
Dalal’s firm, Moneywise Media LLP, which runs the Moneylife magazine and digital portal, had challenged the order, contending that it was overly broad, violated freedom of speech and was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing.
It argued that it was not specifically named as a defendant in the suit despite its content being targeted, and that the order effectively amounted to prior restraint on reporting related to the Sandesara family and the alleged fraud case.
Opposing the plea, Sandesara submitted that the appeal was premature as the trial court had yet to decide the application within the prescribed period.
The court agreed, noting that the statutory scheme requires parties to first seek relief before the trial court unless there is a failure to decide the injunction application within the stipulated time.
“In view of the above-mentioned, it can be easily deduced that the appeal is not maintainable at this stage, as the appellant has the opportunity to be heard before the learned trial court,” the judge said.
It clarified that its observations were confined to the maintainability of the appeal and would not affect the merits of the pending proceedings before the trial court.
