Delhi Court Orders Compliance In Ankiti Bose Defamation Suit, Cites Prima Facie Breach

New Delhi: A Delhi district court has directed compliance with its earlier interim injunction in entrepreneur Ankiti Bose's defamation suit against defendants, observing that Bose has prima facie shown breach of the injunction order.

District Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla of the Dwarka Courts, in an order dated July 16, directed the defendant Nitin Naresh and others to ensure compliance with the injunction and file an affidavit of compliance.

The court observed that it is settled law that a person who is in contempt or intentional breach of a court order cannot be heard on merits until the breach is remedied or the order is complied with.

The court further said the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be heard only after compliance with the interim order. It observed that while the interim order may ultimately be vacated or the plaint rejected, the defendant must first comply with the court's direction. The court also reiterated that a party remains bound by a judicial order until it is set aside.

During the hearing, defendant Nitin Naresh asked the court about the timeline for deciding his application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC if he complied with the injunction. The court observed that the defendant was attempting to put conditions on the court. Counsel for the defendant thereafter submitted that the defendant would ensure compliance with the injunction and file the required affidavit. The matter has been listed for hearing on all pending applications on July 25.

The latest order comes in continuation of an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the same court on June 8 in Bose's defamation suit. In that order, the court restrained the defendants from publishing, republishing, circulating or disseminating the impugned article or any similar allegedly defamatory content pending further proceedings.

While granting interim relief on June 8, the court observed that Bose is the complainant in the FIR and noted that the defendants had commented on the truth or falsity of her complaint without relying on any claim made by the investigating agency.

On a prima facie assessment at the interim stage, the court held that the impugned publication was defamatory and observed that permitting its continued circulation could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation.

The June 8 order also noted the nature of online publications and observed that reputational harm caused by defamatory digital content may not be adequately compensated by monetary damages, leading the court to grant interim protection pending adjudication of the suit.