Back
Delhi HC Pumps the Brakes: No Immediate Gag on BPTP 'Scam' Articles
In a closely watched defamation showdown, the on , refused to real estate giant against journalist Nitin Naresh and others. Justice Mini Pushkarna heard arguments in suit and under , where BPTP sought to halt further "false, misleading, and defamatory" publications. Instead, the court noted Naresh's undertaking to avoid sharing the articles on social media and issued notice, listing the matter for .
From Unsolicited Email to 17 Articles: The Spark Ignites
The dispute traces back to , when Naresh—described by BPTP as a director/shareholder in
(publisher of
) and partner at
—sent an email offering legal services to BPTP. No response came, and soon after, 16 articles appeared between July 2025 and March 2026, branding BPTP and its MD
Kabul Chawla
as scammers. Headlines screamed sensationalism:
"Kabul Chawla: The BPTP Owner Who Scammed India's Real Estate Stakeholders and Enjoys His Vacation from Justice"
,
"ED Raids BPTP Offices Across Delhi-NCR In Alleged 500 Crore FEMA Violation"
, and
"BPTP Most Controversial Real Estate Company Gears Up For IPO..."
.
BPTP's plaint alleges this was a "malicious campaign" post-snub, aimed at extortion. They claim Naresh met BPTP reps at a police station after their August 2025 complaint, demanding money to pull articles. A 17th piece allegedly dropped even after legal notice. The company drew parallels to a prior Delhi HC order in , where Naresh faced similar accusations.
Plaintiff's Volley: Malice, Not Journalism
Senior counsel
painted Naresh as a vexed solicitor turned vendetta-seeker. The articles, he argued, peddled
"unverified allegations of scamming... conspiracy to defraud investors, [and] defrauding real estate buyers,"
selectively twisting facts into hyperbole. No current FIRs stand against the MD (a 2011 one was quashed), and ED raids were misrepresented. BPTP stressed
to its marketplace reputation ahead of an IPO push.
Defense Strikes Back: on Public Probes
Appearing in person, Naresh countered as a "journalist" writing on multiple firms, not targeting BPTP alone. Articles reflected public records: ED raids and FIRs against BPTP's MD. The legal services email? A mass outreach via LinkedIn connections, not extortion. He denied operational control or salary from his law firm role and undertook:
"the articles... shall not be put or disseminated on any other social media platform."
Court's Steady Hand: Notice Issued, Balance Preserved
Justice Pushkarna disposed procedural applications—granting time for court fees (one week), originals (eight weeks), additional documents (30 days)—and registered the plaint. On the injunction, no immediate order emerged. The court took Naresh's no-social-media pledge on record, binding him to it. For future pieces:
"defendant no. 1 shall ensure that the same is in the nature of
and
."
Notice goes to defendants; replies due in four weeks.
This echoes the Oravel precedent's scrutiny of similar tactics, but here, the bench prioritized over snap injunctions, distinguishing "" from malice.
Key Observations
"Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no. 1 is a Director and a Shareholder of defendant no. 3... owning 50% of the same."(Para 27)
"The aforesaid articles contain numerous false, malicious, and unverified allegations aimed directly at damaging the reputation of the plaintiff..."(Para 29)
"Defendant no. 1... submits that there has been a Report from the ... Thus, the articles... are in the nature of and are not defamatory."(Para 33)
"The aforesaid statement of defendant no. 1 is taken note of and defendant no. 1 is held bound by the same."(Para 40)
"In case, defendant no. 1 writes any other article... qua the plaintiff or MD of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 shall ensure that the same is in the nature of ..."(Para 43)
Road Ahead: July Showdown Looms
Defendants must file written statements in 30 days, with admission/denial affidavits. No unjustified denials risk costs. Inspections and replications follow strict timelines. Listed before the Joint Registrar on and court on July 7 in the advance top-10.
This ruling signals caution in reining in online journalism amid public interest probes, potentially influencing how courts weigh reputational harm against free speech in India's booming digital media landscape. BPTP's suit for permanent injunction and damages presses on.
