New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed international media group Bloomberg’s appeal against a lower court order directing it to take down an allegedly defamatory news article against Zee Entertainment.
Justice Shalinder Kaur said there was no ground to interfere with the ex-parte interim order passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on the lawsuit by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited over the article published on February 21, and ordered Bloomberg to comply with the direction in three days.
“A reading of the impugned order suggests that the learned ADJ applied his mind to the facts of this case and satisfied himself that prima facie there was enough material to come to the conclusion for the purpose of granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, otherwise the entire purpose of filing the application would have been rendered infructuous,” said Justice Kaur in the order.
“I, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned herein. Consequently, the appeal along with pending applications, stands dismissed,” opined the judge.
The high court observed there was no final adjudication on the subject matter at this stage as the ADJ was yet to hear Bloomberg.
The media organisation rushed to the high court without exploring the option of filing a reply to the application on interim relief or filing a plea for modification of the ex-parte ad-interim order, it said.
Noting that the matter has been fixed for hearing on March 26, the high court said in case of any urgency, the parties are at liberty to approach the ADJ for an early hearing.
“It is clarified that the appellants have to comply with the directions of learned ADJ vide order dated 01.03.2024 within three days from today,” the high court ordered.
On March 1, the ADJ had directed Bloomberg to take down the allegedly defamatory article within a week, saying Zee had established a “prima facie case for passing ad-interim ex-parte orders of injunction”.
The ADJ had said the balance of convenience is in Zee’s favour and irreparable loss and injury might be caused to the company if the injunction was not granted.
The appellant contended before the high court that the lawsuit was intended to intimidate and silence their right to free and fair speech.
It was also claimed that the ADJ did not give the portal an opportunity to place before it several other articles published prior in time and was denied a right to establish their case.
