Ashok Bansal & Ors. v. Manoj Babbar & Ors.

16. At the outset, it is the submission of Mr. Gupta that the contents of the impugned video, on the face of it, are frivolous, concocted and vexatious and are made with an objective to pressurize the plaintiffs to give in to the illegal demands made by the defendant nos.1-2 in a complaint case filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the plaintiffs.

17. He submits that the impugned video has been uploaded by the defendant no.3 on his ‘YouTube’ channel viz. “Aristocar”, which has wide viewership.

18. By drawing attention of the Court to para 13 of the plaint, where the defamatory contents have been culled out, Mr. Gupta submits that a bare perusal of the contents of the impugned video would reveal that the imputations made against the plaintiffs are self-declaratory and based upon false and frivolous facts.

19. He further submits that the plaintiffs have even made requests to the defendant nos.[4] and 5 to delete the impugned video, however, the latter have shown their inability to delete the same and thus, the former are constrained to file the present suit.

20. By inviting attention of the Court to para 16 of the plaint, Mr. Gupta submits as in the description of the impugned video, the contact details of the plaintiffs have been deliberately shared, as a result of which the plaintiffs have been receiving regular threats since the date of the uploading of the impugned video.

21. He has further drawn attention of the Court to para 17 of the plaint to show how the imputations made in the video are not correct.

22. He submits that, as of now, there are 3,13,000 viewers who have already seen the impugned video and almost 1350 people have commented upon it. He submits that the impugned video has been continuously shared and viewed and thus, continuous access of the defamatory video to the public at large is tarnishing the image of the plaintiffs. Hence, the said video should be directed to be deleted from the defendant no.4’s platform.

23. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs as well as gone through the materials placed on record.

24. The transcript of the impugned video uploaded by the defendant no.3 on his ‘YouTube’ channel ‘Aristocar’ shows that it begins with the statement that “so many people have lost their life saving, in this real estate scam so I found it necessary to make a video so that none of you loose anything, as me and my family have been scammed of course with this real estate company called “Nextra Developers and The Director, Ashok Bansal” (emphasis supplied).

25. Thereafter, in the beginning itself, it was advised to the viewers to share the impugned video by stating that “what scam happened with my family and with other people and how can you save yourself and it is advised to everybody to share this video” (emphasis supplied).

26. Subsequently, the defendant no.3 makes certain other imputations against the plaintiff no.1 as well as his companies such as “We enquired about the “Cyber Park” project and found that neither they were having any licence nor it was approved by the Government. So technically, they were selling air”. …………….. “They have settled their paper in such a manner that it is difficult to win for a normal person with a normal lawyer. If we jointly file a case then we can win it”…………………. “There are 35 active companies and 149 inactive companies on the name of Ashok Bansal. What juggle they have done in aforesaid companies. You know online fraud for example think if fraud is to be made on the name of HDFC Bank, then assume that that URL of HDFC Bank is ‘hdfc.com’ then they prepare such a URL ‘hdfcbank.co.in’ so that normal person will think that website is of HDFC Bank and he will make payment - thereon. Similarly, what they have done they have created multiple companies similar to one company so that no difference can be made out by normal person. Out of all such multiple company, they have a brand name ‘Odeon’. Now, under the brand name of “odeon” they opened “Odeon Buildwell Pvt Lid”, “Odeon Developers Pvt Ltd”, “Odeon Infratech Pvt Ltd”, “Odeon Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd”. Normal person cannot mark difference between “Odeon Developers” and "Odeon Developers and Builders”. He remained under impression that both the companies are same and he will attain faith on both the companies. That both companies are same and he will attain faith on both the companies…… “And their scam does not end here, they have set up a broad band company and named it Nextra Broadband”……. “When any person publish a negative article, they manage to remove it after paying money and when the image of any company got spoiled or become negative then they change name of the company. Initially their company name was Odeon. There they did big Scam”………“Below, I am giving the phone number of their company in pinned comment. You are requested to give call on my behalf and ask when will get the money and when they will stop the scam”. (emphasis supplied).

27. A perusal of the title of the alleged video i.e., ‘I lost Crores in this Real Estate SCAM!! | Nextra Developers The Address SCAM’ as well as aforesaid imputations made against the plaintiffs would reveal that an endeavour has been made by the defendant no.3 to project before the public at large as if some ‘scam’ has been committed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. It has also been portrayed that the plaintiffs have defrauded the defendants by making them invest in their real estate commercial project of “Cyber Park” at Gurgaon.

28. In the impugned video, it is stated that as the plaintiffs were unable to provide assured returns to the defendants, they issued few cheques to the defendants, however, the said cheques got dishonoured. It is further stated that for cheating as well as breach of promise, the defendants have also filed an FIR as well as a complaint case against the plaintiffs.

29. It has been averred in the plaint that complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs and are pending adjudication in Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The copies of the said cases are also placed on record. I have also seen a copy an FIR no. 1265/2023 filed by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiffs alleging commission of offence such as criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation. Even in a complaint case i.e., CC No. 142/2021 filed by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff no.3, CW- 1 i.e., the defendant no.1 herein, is presently under cross-examination.

30. Clearly, multiple litigations are pending between the plaintiffs and the defendants and it cannot be gathered from the contents of the impugned video that the imputations made to the effect that the plaintiffs have defrauded the defendants or are doing scam, have been established and proved in a court of law for them to be disseminated as truth before the public at large.

31. Other documents such as screenshots of the comments made by subscribers/viewers of the defendant no.3 on the impugned video and screenshots of the WhatsApp messages as well as calls received from unknown numbers by the plaintiffs, have also been perused. It is evident that because of the massive following of the defendant no.3, around 1400 people as of now have commented against the plaintiff merely on the basis of the imputations made by the defendant no.3 in the impugned video.

32. The defendant no.3 has even pinned 05 personal contact numbers of the plaintiffs because of which the first thing a viewer comes across after opening of the comment box is the personal contact details of the plaintiffs. This act of the defendant no.3 has surely breached the privacy of the plaintiffs. From the documents filed by the plaintiffs, it prima facie appears that soon after uploading of the impugned video, the plaintiffs had been receiving derogatory WhatsApp messages as well as numerous phone calls from unknown phone numbers. Further, having regard to the nature of imputations made against the plaintiff no.2 company, the submission of Mr. Gupta that the reputation and business of the plaintiffs have been injured, does not appear to be without substance.

33. It is trite law that reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech.[1] It is equally well settled that corporate entities like the plaintiff nos.[2] and 5 also have a business reputation and can sue for defamation in respect of a publication calculated to injure their reputation in the way of its business.[2]

34. In Subramanian Swamy[3] the Apex Court whilst relying upon Charu Khurana and others vs. Union of India and others[4] has observed that right to honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents of right under Article 21.

35. At this juncture, advantageous it would be to rely upon a decision of a Subramanian Swamy vs. UOI & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 221. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Dr. Jagmohan Mundhara and another., AIR 1985 Bom 229; Expersion Developers Private Limited vs. UP Television Network Private Limited, 2020: DHC: 1975 and Ashis Mohapatra & Ors. vs. Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(OS) 825/2024, decided on 15.10.2024. (Supra). co-ordinate bench of this Court in Rajat Sharma vs. X Corp, (formerly Twitter) and Others[5], wherein, in para 40, it held as under:-

36. Considering that the imputations made against the plaintiffs in the impugned video are still under investigation and have not been proved and regard being had to the fact that the defendant no.3 has massive subscriber base of 2.[8] lakhs subscribers, and that the impugned video has gathered 3.[6] lakhs views as well as multiple comments from numerous viewers, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made a prima facie case for grant of ad interim relief in their favour. I am satisfied that grave and irreparable damages will be caused to the plaintiffs, if ad interim injunctive orders are not passed in their favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs.

37. Under these circumstances, the defendant nos.[1] to 3 are directed to take down / remove / restrict access / block the below mentioned URL of the impugned video uploaded on the defendant no.4’s social media video sharing platform i.e., ‘YouTube’, which contains defamatory imputations against the plaintiffs within a period of two weeks: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYpCUFOF5W[8]

38. In the event the defendant nos.[1] to 3 fail to take down / remove / restrict access / block the aforementioned URL within the period of two weeks, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach and request the defendant no.5 i.e., ‘Google’, and the latter, in that eventuality, shall take down the said URL within a period of 36 hours of such request.

39. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within two weeks. An affidavit of compliance may be filed within three days thereafter.

40. Needless to say, that the observations made herein are prima facie for the consideration of ad-interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

41. The defendants may file replies within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

42. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings on 14.01.2025.

43. List before the Court on 28.02.2025. I.A. 43670/2024 (by plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14 seeking to place on record certain additional documents)

44. Considering the nascent stage of the suit, as well as, the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

45. The additional documents as referred to in para 2 of the application are taken on record.

46. The application stands disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J OCTOBER 28, 2024