Delhi HC dismisses Bloomberg appeal against order to take down 'defamatory' article

New Delhi [India], March 14 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the appeal moved by Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited challenging the order of the Saket district court directing it to take down an article titled "India Regulator Uncovers USD 241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee" published on February 21 from its website.
The bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur while passing the judgment, said that a reading of the impugned order suggests that the Saket district court's Additional District Judge applied his mind to the facts of this case and satisfied himself that prima facie there was enough material to come to the conclusion for the purpose of granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, otherwise the entire purpose of filing the application would have been rendered infructuous.
"I, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned herein. Consequently, the appeal along with pending applications, stands dismissed," said Justice Shalinder Kaur.
Bloomberg article claimed that the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had apparently "found a discrepancy of more than USD 240 million in the accounts of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd".
The Saket Court on March 1 stated that the Zee has made out a prima facie case for passing ad interim ex-parte orders of injunction, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/Bloomberg and irreparable loss and injury may be caused to the plaintiff, if the injunction as prayed for is not granted.
Following this, Bloomberg and its journalists were directed to take down the article from the online platform within one week of receipt of the order. Bloomberg and its reporters were further restrained from posting, circulating or publishing the aforesaid article in respect of the plaintiff on any online or offline platform till the next date of the hearing.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Bloomberg argued that the appellants being aggrieved with the ex-parte ad-interim injunction have submitted that ADJ accepted the averments of the Zee as gospel truth without affording the appellants an opportunity to rebut the same and in doing so, the appellants have been found guilty and thence, the ADJ adjudicated the subject matter at the very threshold. In view of the above, it was submitted that the impugned order being without merit, be set aside.
Arguing for ZEE, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal assisted by Naman Joshi and Guneet Sidhu contended that the article was "completely incorrect and false." Aggarwal contended that the defamatory Article had been published to malign and defame ZEE's reputation in a pre-meditated and malafide manner. In response to a query, Aggarwal said no question of truth as a defence could arise as SEBI had not rendered any finding against ZEE.