Defamation claims require substantiation of allegations; unsubstantiated claims must be retracted to protect reputational interests.

O R D E R

% 06.10.2025 I.A. 20318/2025 (for injunction)

1. On 20.08.2025, this matter was called out for hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff requested the Court to pass an order on the injunction application. The Court accordingly directed registration of the suit and issuance of summons. Notice on the injunction application was also directed to be served.

2. Today, when the matter is called out in first round, none has appeared for the defendant. Even in the second round, no one appears.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has filed an affidavit of service, which is extracted as under:

“AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Ms. Priya Chauhan, d/o Mr. Shailendra Chauhan, aged about 26 years, available at J. Sagar Associates, B-303 Anşal Plaza, Hudco Place, August Kranti. Marg, New Delhi-110 049, do heręby solemnly affix and declare as under:

1. I am the counsel for Plaintiff (M/s Bacardi India Private Limited) in the suit for defamation filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, Mr.

Chegalamarri Venkateswarulu.

2. A copy of the said suit for defamation was sent by my email address, i.e. priya.chauhan@isalaw.com through email, dated 18 August 2025 to the Defendant’s emails ids at venkat9873@hotmail.com and cvenkat3@gmail.com

3. The email dated 18 August 2025 sent to the email address above mentioned did not bounce back and was delivered.

4. Additionally, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that an email communication dated 11.09.2025 was received from the defendant, in which he made unfounded and baseless allegations against the plaintiff company. These included aspersions regarding the plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with ethical standards and applicable regulations, and even included allegations suggesting the encouragement of bribery. While the defendant acknowledged receipt of the summons in that communication, he stated that the aspersions and allegations made by him would be justified before the Court of law.

5. Since no one has appeared to justify the allegations or the contents of the aforementioned email, the Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff, Bacardi India Pvt Ltd., claims to be a reputed company engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing alcoholic beverages and is part of the globally recognized Bacardi Limited group. The defendant appears to be an individual who has a dispute with one of the plaintiff’s employees, namely Ms. Radhika Jeevanna Rao. The plaintiff states that between January 2025 and July 2025, the defendant engaged in a sustained and malicious campaign to defame the company and its employees through multiple emails and public social media posts, particularly on LinkedIn.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff specifically pointed out that the defendant made allegations regarding the quality of liquor, claiming it to be of low standard. He has taken the Court through the relevant LinkedIn post made by the defendant. Counsel submits that such defamatory statements are causing significant harm to the plaintiff’s commercial and professional reputation. The plaintiff is a globally operating company with annual retail sales of approximately USD 14.76 billion in 2024, and these unfounded allegations are likely to cause substantial damage to its reputation.

8. In view of the above circumstances, the Court restrains the defendant from making any further aspersions or defamatory comments against the plaintiff.

9. In the meantime, since the allegations made by the defendant remain unsubstantiated, there is no justification for such statements to remain in the public domain. Accordingly, the defendant is directed to take down the comment posted on Bacardi’s LinkedIn post dated 04.06.2025, which appears at page no. 111 o