* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 15.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 18.12.2025 + FAO 346/2025, CM APPLs. 78829/2025 & 78831/2025 IE ONLINE MEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED.....Appellant Through: Mr. Nachiket Joshi and Ms. Chanan Parwani, Advocates.

versus NITIN BHATNAGAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Trideep P., Sr. Advocate with Ms. S. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Jha, Mr. Akshit Mago and Ms. E. Kashyap, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Apar Gupta, Ms. Avanti Deshpande, Mr. Naman Kumar and Ms. Indumugi C., Advocates for R-

11.

Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Aishwarya Debadarshini, Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates for R-10.

Mr. Manu Seth, Advocate for R-5 and R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under Order XLIII rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), has been filed by defendant no. 2 in C.S. No. 510/2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2025 by which the trial court allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein.

2. In this appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to as described in the plaint.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating the present appeal are: The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions along with damages, inter alia, alleging that he is a professional banker with an unblemished career spanning over seventeen years, having worked with reputed international banking institutions, and that he enjoys a high standing and reputation in the society. In August 2023, the plaintiff was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (the ED) in connection with proceedings arising out of alleged irregularities relating to M/s Moser Baer India Limited, pursuant to which several news reports were published by various media houses and digital platforms, including the defendants, reporting his arrest and associating his name with the alleged offence.

3.1. According to the plaintiff, although the impugned news reports were published at different points of time, they continued to remain accessible on digital platforms and search engines, thereby perpetuating an impression of guilt against him. The jurisdictional court discharged the plaintiff by finding that no prima facie case had been made out and that there was no legally admissible evidence linking the plaintiff to the alleged offence vide order dated 17.08.2024. However, despite such discharge, the impugned articles and reports continue to be hosted, indexed and circulated rendering them misleading and defamatory and causing harm to his reputation, dignity and professional prospects. Hence, the plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the defendants from further publication or circulation of such content and directions of de-indexing and de-referencing of the impugned articles and URLs pendente lite.

3.2. The defendants on the other hand contended that there was no malice or intent to defame the plaintiff and that the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the public’s right to be informed, could not be curtailed by an order of prior restraint. The defendants also contended that in respect of certain publications, updates reflecting the plaintiff’s discharge had already been incorporated, thereby adequately balancing the reputational concerns. However, the plaintiff has approached the court by suppressing material facts and that no case of grant of interim injunction was made out, particularly in a defamation case, as the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not satisfied.

4. The trial court, vide the impugned order, granted interim relief to the plaintiff by taking note of the plaintiff’s discharge in the criminal proceedings and concluded that the continuous availabi