Bombay High Court | ‘Sprouts News’ Restrained from Publishing Defamatory Material | Orders Take-Down of Articles Targeting Godrej Properties
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla, has granted urgent ex parte ad-interim relief by issuing an injunction against the publication and further dissemination of certain articles and online material considered prima facie defamatory. The Court directed that the identified material be restrained from publication and ordered its immediate removal from circulation. The directives were issued upon finding that notice to the opposing parties would defeat the purpose of the urgent relief sought, as it could lead to further publication of the contested material. The order mandates the deletion and retraction of the impugned articles and defamatory content from online platforms and media outlets.
The matter was moved before the Bombay High Court through an ex parte application by the Plaintiff seeking urgent ad-interim relief. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had published defamatory material in the form of articles and online posts. The request for urgent relief was supported by an averment in paragraph 41 of the Plaint, which asserted that providing advance notice to the Defendants would allow them to publish or further disseminate the defamatory material, thereby causing irreparable damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Plaintiff argued that in such circumstances, the entire object of the relief would be lost.
The Plaintiff placed reliance on two impugned articles dated 13th August 2025 and 18th August 2025, annexed as Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘E’ to the Plaint. Collectively, along with related web posts, the Plaintiff described these as the “Defamatory Material.” According to the Plaintiff, these publications contained allegations which were materially false, per se defamatory, reckless, malicious, and grossly injurious to its business and commercial reputation. The articles allegedly accused the Plaintiff of engaging in several criminal offences, assertions which were denied as false and malicious.
The Plaintiff’s counsel, Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar, assisted by other counsels, drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 23(a) to (f) of the Plaint, wherein the Plaintiff specifically identified and contested the defamatory statements made by the Defendants in the impugned publications. The Plaintiff alleged that the publications sought to create a false impression among buyers of its real estate projects by suggesting that mandatory fire safety approvals were not obtained. This, it was contended, was supported by reference to a repealed statute, the Haryana Fire and Emergency Services Act, 2009. The first article carried the headline, “Godrej’s Rs.5,000 Crore plus project under fire over by ‘toothless’ HRERA.”
Further, the Plaintiff alleged that the second impugned article was even more damaging than the first. It purportedly placed the word “Fraud” upon the Plaintiff’s logo, registered trademark, and brand insignia. According to the Plaintiff, this created a reckless and malicious insinuation of criminal conduct in the public domain.
The Plaintiff, therefore, sought relief in terms of restraining orders preventing the Defendants from making or publishing defamatory statements, along with directions for the immediate removal, deletion, or retraction of the identified defamatory material. The reliefs sought were framed in prayer clauses (a) and (d) of the Plaint.
The Plaintiff’s counsel also pointed out typographical errors in the wording of the interim application’s prayer clauses. The Court permitted the Plaintiff to amend the same forthwith, noting that reverification of the application was not required.
The matter was presented ex parte on the basis that issuance of notice would frustrate the urgent relief sought. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that further delay could irreparably harm the Plaintiff’s reputation, business goodwill, and brand standing in the market.
Justice R.I. Chagla carefully considered the submissions and materials placed on record. After examining the contents of the Plaint and the annexed exhibits, the Court noted the urgency and seriousness of the relief sought.
The Court recorded in its order: “Giving of notice to the Defendants would result in the Defendants publishing / further publishing the material which in my prima facie view is per se defamatory and / or publishing further similar defamatory material causing severe damage and loss to the reputation of the Plaintiff.”
The Court further observed, after reviewing paragraph 23 of the Plaint: “I find that the Plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case for restraining the Defendants from publishing articles containing statements which in my prima facie view is false, reckless, malicious and grossly injurious and damaging to the Plaintiffs business and commercial reputation.”
In relation to the second article dated 18th August 2025, the Court remarked: “In particular the impugned Article dated 18th August, 2025 where the Defendants has placed the term ‘Fraud’ upon the Plaintiff’s logo and registered trademark and brand insignia of namely Godrej Properties Ltd., thereby conveying to the public a reckless and malicious insinuation of criminal conduct.”
The Court thus concluded that there existed a strong prima facie case warranting immediate ex parte intervention to prevent further dissemination of the impugned content.
The Court proceeded to grant urgent ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of the Plaintiff’s prayer clauses (a) and (d), as corrected. Justice R.I. Chagla recorded: “In that view of the matter, the Plaintiff is entitled to ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (d) of the Interim Application as corrected and accordingly, ex parte ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (d).”
The Court then quoted the corrected prayer clauses which formed the operative directions:
Prayer Clause (a): “That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their correspondents, reporters, journalists, servants, agents. officers, representatives and subordinates and any person acting for and/ or on their behalf, from directly and/ or indirectly making or publishing, or causing or authorizing to be made or published or further publishing and/or continuing the publication of the said Defamatory Material (Exhibits 'C' and 'E' hereto), including the Defamatory Statements (more particularly defined in paragraph 23 of the Plaint) contained in the said Defamatory Material and / or any other similar / identical statements, letters, articles, whatsoever, whether on the Defendants website https://sproutsnews.com/ or any other media, including social media handles such as Facebook, LinkedIn, X Corp. etc., maintained by the Defendants, or otherwise in any manner whatsoever;”
Prayer Clause (d): “pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a an order and injunction directing the Defendants, their correspondents, reporters, journalists, servants, agents, officers, representatives and subordinates and any person acting for and/ or on their behalf, to forthwith delete/remove/ take-down/ retract the said Defamatory Material (Exhibits 'C' and 'E' hereto), including any Defamatory Statements (more particularly defined in paragraph 23 of the Plaint) contained in the said Defamatory Material and/ or any other similar/ identical statements, letters, articles, whatsoever, published by the Defendants whether on the Defendants' website https://sproutsnews.com/.”
The Court further directed that notice of this order be served by the Plaintiff’s advocates upon the Defendants. Additionally, the Court granted liberty to the Defendants to apply for variation, modification, or vacation of the order, provided they give 48 clear working hours’ notice to the Plaintiff’s advocates.
The Court scheduled the matter for further consideration on 8th September 2025 and directed all concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of the order.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant / Plaintiff: Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Counsel, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Karan Bhide, Mr. Nitesh Ranavat, and Mr. Disha Shetty, instructed by Wadia Ghandy and Co.
Case Title: Godrej Properties Ltd. v. M/s. Sprouts News and Anr.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 26439 of 2025 in Suit (L) No. 26438 of 2025
Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla
