India Case Status

Judgment Brief

Interim gag order refused in defamation suit

By ICS Desk

Case: LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA TRUST THROUGH PRASHANT MEHTA vs HDFC BANK LIMITED

High Court of BombayIA/3095/202509/06/2026

Bench: JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

The Bombay High Court, per Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, dismissed an interim application seeking a gag order in a defamation suit filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Trust and Prashant Mehta against HDFC Bank and others.

The plaintiffs alleged that statements made by HDFC Bank and its executives, and content published on social media platforms, were defamatory. They sought wide interim reliefs, including restraint on further statements, removal of allegedly defamatory material from social media and the bank’s website, and a direction for public apology.

The court declined to grant interim injunction. On the material before it, the court was not persuaded that a blanket restraint on speech was appropriate at this stage. The reasoning, as reflected in the order, turned on constitutional free speech principles and the court’s view that truthful speech cannot be gagged through an overbroad injunction. The court also considered the defence of truth and the public record surrounding the dispute.

The order records that the judicial and quasi-judicial findings available on record supported the contents of the statements complained of. The court observed that what was already in the public domain about the plaintiffs weighed against interfering with HDFC Bank’s ability to state its version of the factual position publicly.

The court further noted that the litigation formed part of a longer chain of proceedings connected with recovery efforts, and that prior attempts to derail recovery had been repelled by courts. On that basis, it held that costs should follow the event.

The interim application was dismissed without any interim injunction. The plaintiffs were directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as costs to HDFC Bank within six weeks from upload of the judgment.

Practical takeaway: In defamation disputes, a broad pre-trial gag order will face close scrutiny where the court finds the impugned speech tied to matters already in the public record and protected by free speech principles.

Appearances

Not available in the official judgment PDF.

Official Source

PDFView Judgement PDF