Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
D.A. Thejeshwari W/o K.M. Srinivas Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Prasanna G. S/o Puttaswamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking injunction against defamatory news. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. contents of the application and need for urgency. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court’s obligation to provide reasoned orders. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 4. trial court’s failure to issue a reasoned order. (Para 15) |
| 5. remand to trial court for consideration of application. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondents-defendants.
2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7977/2025 against the respondents-defendants before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs:
"a. To Grant permanent injunction against Defendants, restraining the defendants in any manner either by themselves or through any other ways from telecasting/broadcasting/publishing the fake news about the plaintiff.
b. Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from propagating and defendants from telecasting, Publishing, the printed article, Breaking news/news item, Program/debates in any manner in their TV Channel, Web Portal, and social media thereby causing damage to the integrit
The trial Court must provide a reasoned order on temporary injunction applications, particularly when delay could cause irreparable harm to a party's reputation or rights.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The court underscored the urgency for trial courts to address applications for interim relief in defamation cases involving social media to prevent reputational harm.
Injunction – While granting ad-interim injunctions in defamation suits, potential of using prolonged litigation to prevent free speech and public participation must also be kept in mind by courts.
Interim orders under the Code of Civil Procedure continue until revoked, emphasizing the necessity for timely extensions to maintain protective measures against potential harm.
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
Interim injunctions must meet the triple test: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; ex-parte orders are justified in defamation cases where urgent protection is needed.
Temporary injunctions cannot be issued against non-parties; principles of natural justice must be upheld in legal proceedings.
Trial courts must evaluate and provide reasoning for injunction applications based on urgency and merits before requiring notice to the other party, as mandated by procedural rules.
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
