Delhi High Court Restrains Ex-Probationer From Defamatory Posts Against ICICI Bank | Court Finds Prima Facie Case And Irreparable Harm To Reputation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal restrained the defendant from disseminating defamatory content against the plaintiffs. The Court directed that the defendant shall not make or circulate any abusive or disparaging remarks through videos, posts, or other online publications targeting the plaintiffs until the next date of hearing. The Court further directed the defendant not to disseminate any audio or video recordings of quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings involving the plaintiffs. The matter has been listed before the Court for further consideration on 15 January 2026.
The matter arises from a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain him from making defamatory statements.
According to the record, the defendant had been employed as a Relationship Manager with plaintiff no. 2, ICICI Bank, commencing on 11 May 2022 on a probationary basis. The defendant’s employment was terminated during his probation period on 6 June 2023. Following his discharge, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant began publishing abusive and defamatory statements directed against them on various social media platforms.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendant posted over 100 videos across multiple platforms, disparaging plaintiff no. 2, ICICI Bank. The defamatory material, it was stated, included accusations and derogatory remarks aimed at damaging the reputation of the bank.
The record further shows that the defendant initiated conciliation proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During these proceedings, conducted on 15 May 2025, the defendant allegedly made abusive and defamatory remarks against employees of plaintiff no. 2, ICICI Bank. The plaintiffs submitted that these remarks were subsequently uploaded to social media platforms by the defendant.
The abusive and defamatory remarks referred to in the case were compiled and listed in Document 6 filed along with the plaint. The plaintiffs also sought to place on record video evidence in the form of screen recordings of the conciliatory proceedings, contained in a pen drive (Document no. 4). The Court allowed this application. Additionally, the plaintiffs were permitted exemption from filing translations of certain vernacular texts forming part of the screenshots, subject to producing translations within four weeks.
The plaintiffs argued that the persistent defamatory conduct of the defendant had caused reputational harm to plaintiff no. 2, a reputed bank. They maintained that the repeated posting of such content demonstrated the defendant’s intent to malign their public image.
Despite advance service, the defendant did not appear before the Court. Consequently, summons and notice were issued through all permissible modes, including email, directing the defendant to file a written statement within thirty days of receipt of summons. The order further required the defendant to file an affidavit of admission or denial of the plaintiffs’ documents along with the written statement.
The Court clarified that unjustified denials of documents by either party could result in imposition of costs. The order also provided liberty to the plaintiffs to file a replication within thirty days of receiving the defendant’s written statement, along with an affidavit of admission or denial of the defendant’s documents.
The Court scheduled the matter before the Joint Registrar on 9 October 2025 for completion of service and pleadings, and before the Court on 15 January 2026.
Justice Amit Bansal recorded: “The plaintiff no. 2 is a reputed Bank and the various statements as well as social media posts by the defendant are intended to damage the reputation of the plaintiff no. 2.”
The Court further observed: “Hence, a prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiffs.”
Justice Bansal stated: “Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.”
It was also recorded: “Irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the defendant continues to make such defamatory statements.”
On this basis, the Court proceeded to issue an interim order of restraint.
The High Court directed that until the next date of hearing, the defendant is restrained from making, addressing, publishing, distributing, posting, tweeting, sharing, circulating, uploading, or otherwise disseminating any abusive, derogatory, or disparaging videos, posts, or other content against the plaintiffs. The Court also directed that the defendant shall not disseminate any audio or video recording of quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings involving either of the plaintiffs.
The Court ordered compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, within three days. It further directed that summons be issued to the defendant through all permissible modes, with an affidavit of service to be filed within two weeks. The defendant was required to file a written statement within thirty days of receipt of summons, together with an affidavit of admission or denial of the plaintiffs’ documents.
The plaintiffs were granted liberty to file a replication within thirty days of receipt of the written statement, accompanied by an affidavit of admission or denial of the defendant’s documents. The Court warned that unjustified denial of documents could attract costs.
The Court fixed the matter before the Joint Registrar on 9 October 2025 for completion of service and pleadings, and before the Court on 15 January 2026 for further proceedings.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Samudra Sarangi, Ms. Riya Kalra, Mr. Paritosh Tengshe, and Ms. Panchi Agarwal, Advocates
Case Title: Kapil Dev Singh & Anr. v. Dharmendra Gupta
Case Number: CS(OS) 539/2025 with I.A. 19834/2025, I.A. 19835/2025, I.A. 19836/2025 & I.A. 19837/2025
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal
