Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16955
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J
M/S DREAM AND DEALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
VIJAYA TIMES – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 21141 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH
For the Respondents:
In matters of defamation, courts may direct trial courts to expedite hearings when urgent applications arise despite prior injunctions.
Headnote:Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to remove defamatory content aired against it. The petitioner contended the trial court had previously passed an injunction against defendant no.48 for similar conduct. The court allowed the petition to be dismissed but clarified that the petitioner could seek further directions from the trial court. The merits were not adjudicated as no prejudicial order was issued against the respondent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks removal of defamatory content. (Para 1) |
| 2. previous injunction against defendant no.48. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petition dismissed with liberty to seek further directions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to remove/delete the defamatory videos/articles/publications which are played/aired/
telecasting 'against the petitioner'.
2. At the time of arguments, it was pointed out that the trial court has passed an order while considering the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, in the suit filed by the petitioner against the same respondent who was arrayed as defendant no.48.
3. It is submitted that despite the order of injunction passed, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, the 48th defendant/respondent is still continuing to allow the uploaded video clip without taking down the same.
4. Though the prayer of the petitioner is for directions to the respondents, noticing that the respondent herein is defendant no.48 before the trial court, the petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court and obtain further directions/clarifications as may be necessary.
5. In light of urgency pleaded, if such application is filed before the trial court, the same to be taken up on priority and endeavor be made to consider the request of the petitioner expeditiously.
6. In light of the court not entering into merits of the matter, notice to the respondent is waived as no prejudicial order is passed against the respondent.
Sd/-
