Back
Anil Kaushik vs Sourabh Khemani: Applies , Sets Aside Injunction
In a significant ruling on defamation law, the has set aside an that restrained two individuals from sending emails to third parties about the plaintiff’s corporate conduct. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De, held that the trial court erred by ignoring the —the rule that interim injunctions in defamation cases cannot be granted unless the defendant’s is certain to fail at trial.
The Dispute: Emails Alleging Corporate Misconduct
The case arose from a suit filed by Sourabh Khemani against Anil Kaushik and another defendant, seeking to stop them from disseminating allegedly defamatory emails. The emails accused Khemani, a former director of and , of illegal activities such as misappropriating proprietary software source codes and confidential technical material.
On , the passed an interim order restraining the defendants from “sending e-mails to third parties who are not directly involved with the concerned business” while allowing them to make genuine complaints before statutory authorities. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed, leading to the High Court’s intervention.
The Trial Court’s Contradictory Reasoning
The High Court found the trial judge’s reasoning internally inconsistent. Although the trial court observed that “at this stage it is not possible for the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the allegations made in the offending e-mails are genuine or not,” it nonetheless granted an injunction barring “illegal allegations.” The Division Bench noted:
“Since the Court itself was unsure while passing the impugned order as to the legality of the allegations raised in the offending e-mails, there was no possibility for the court to come to a conclusion that those allegations were certain to fail.”
This contradiction, the Bench held, violated the foundational test for defamation injunctions.
The : A Higher Threshold for Interim Relief
The court reaffirmed that defamation suits occupy a distinct niche in injunction law. While ordinary applications require a prima facie case, , and , defamation cases require an additional step—the (derived from and ).
Under this principle, until it is “clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed.” Therefore, courts must act “most cautiously and warily” when considering interim injunctions. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the defendant’s is “certain to fail at trial.”
The Bench observed: “Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed. Indian Courts, following the English principle laid down in Bonnard, have continuously reiterated the importance of leaving free speech unfettered.”
Nature of the Emails: Legal Notices, Not Mere Slurs
Crucially, the court analyzed the content of the two emails in question. The first email, dated , included a warning that it was issued “ to all rights, remedies and proceedings available to the company in law and equity.” The second, dated , attached a formal legal notice and reiterated its allegations.
Though certain strong expressions were used—such as “daylight attempt at looting the company’s intellectual property”—the court found these were made in the specific context of alleged corporate and criminal law violations. The was arguably available, especially since the defendants had already filed applications before the alleging against the plaintiff.
The Vagueness Problem: Who Is a ‘Third Party’?
The High Court also faulted the trial court’s injunction for lacking precision. The order restrained emails to “third parties who are not directly involved with the concerned business.” The Bench noted that the plaint did not identify which recipients fell into this category, leaving the defendants uncertain about whom they could contact.
“The learned Trial Judge, by using such expressions, has left it vague and dependent on the perception of the parties as to who are the third parties who are not directly involved with the concerned business.”
This vagueness effectively created a blanket restraint, which the High Court found impermissible.
Condoning the 38-Day Delay
Before reaching the merits, the court also addressed a procedural hurdle—a 38-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellants attributed the delay to their advocate’s acute back pain, supported by a medical certificate. Though the respondent pointed to the advocate’s sporadic physical appearances in other matters, the court accepted the explanation, noting that the advocate attended only pre-existing matters, not new litigation.
The court observed: “Even if we were to proceed on the premise that the learned Advocate was not diligent enough… there is no reason as to why the appellants should be unduly penalized for the negligence, if any, of their learned Advocate.” The delay was condoned.
Decision and Implications
The allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court’s order. It clarified that its observations were tentative and would not influence the trial judge during the final adjudication.
The ruling reinforces the strict standards for interim injunctions in defamation cases, particularly when the defendant’s statements are rooted in legal notices and corporate disputes. By emphasizing that free speech must be protected unless the is demonstrably doomed, the court has sent a clear message: any interim restraint on derogatory statements must rest on a solid foundation—not on equivocal findings.
()
