Delhi High Court Issues Summons in High-Profile Rs 20 Crore Defamation Case
In a significant legal development within an ongoing family dispute, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons in a substantial Rs 20 crore defamation lawsuit. The case has been filed by Priya Sachdeva Kapur against her sister-in-law, Mandhira Kapur Smith, along with another individual.
Court Directs Media Restraint and Notes Procedural Issues
Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, issued clear directives for both parties to exercise restraint and refrain from making any statements against each other in the media, whether directly or indirectly. This order was reported by news agency ANI and comes as the court recognized the dispute involves members of the same family.
The court expressed hope that the parties might eventually consider resolving their differences through mediation. During proceedings, Justice Pushkarna observed discrepancies in the affidavits accompanying the plaint, noting that some appeared to predate the pleadings and submissions referenced in the suit.
Accordingly, the court directed that fresh affidavits be filed within one week and asked the plaintiff to place a complete copy of the suit on record. The case has been scheduled for April 14 before the Registrar and May 14 before the Court for further proceedings.
Legal Arguments and Allegations Presented
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing Mandhira Kapur Smith along with Advocate Anuj Tiwari, argued that the nature of the dispute should be evident from the plaint itself. Sibal contended that in defamation cases, the cause of action must be clearly identifiable at the outset.
"One has to go through nearly 37 pages before reaching the alleged defamatory content," Sibal noted, describing several portions of the plaint as containing allegations against the defendant that were "completely fictitious."
Advocate Anuj Tiwari highlighted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's filings, pointing out that while the verification affidavit was dated January 20, reliance was placed on facts and an order dated January 21, with documents from February also annexed. Tiwari raised objections regarding alleged suppression, arguing the plaintiff had stated no other suit had been filed on the same cause of action despite a previous suit having been instituted earlier and kept under defects.
Counterarguments and Family History
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Rani Kapur, countered these submissions by maintaining that serious defamatory statements had been made against Priya Kapur. Singh argued that certain remarks not only targeted her reputation but also referred to her minor child, causing grave reputational and emotional harm.
The counsel alleged that statements questioning her "bloodline" and calling her a "thief" had been made on public platforms. The plaintiff's counsel also informed the court that a dispossession suit had earlier been filed in connection with the broader family dispute and that a complaint had been made to the registry regarding alleged leakage of documents.
Advocate Vaibhav Gaggar, also appearing for Rani Kapur, highlighted that in earlier proceedings concerning related family issues, the court had suggested mediation, after which the present litigation followed.
Court's Final Directions and Case Background
Taking note of the rival submissions, the court issued summons to the defendants and directed them to file written statements within 30 days. Notice was also issued on the plaintiff's application seeking an interim injunction, granting four weeks for replies and one week thereafter for rejoinder.
As an interim measure, the court reiterated its directive for both parties to maintain restraint and avoid making statements against each other in the media while the matter remains pending.
The dispute originates from a civil defamation suit filed by Priya Sachdeva Kapur seeking ₹20 crore in damages. The plaintiff alleges that statements made in interviews, podcasts, and on social media by the defendants have harmed her reputation and caused significant mental distress. The matter will next be taken up on April 14 before the Registrar and on May 14 before the Court.
