Delhi HC Restrains Actor Manoj Manchu From Posting Defamatory Statements Against Media Professional Vinay Maheshwari

The Delhi High Court has restrained Telugu Actor Manoj Manchu from making, posting, tweeting, reposting, sharing, or sending any defamatory statements concerning Media Professional Vinay Maheshwari and his family.
The Court was dealing with an Application filed by Vinay Maheshwari under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking grant of ad-interim ex-parte injunction in his favour.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed, “Defendant No. 1, or anyone acting on its behalf, is temporarily restrained from making, posting, tweeting, reposting, sharing, or sending any defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff and his family on any social media platform, messenger service, or public forum.”
The Bench also directed Manoj Manchu to remove tweets relating to Vinay Maheshwari.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the Plaintiff while Advocate Aditya Gupta appeared for the Defendants.
Facts of the Case -
The Plaintiff was a well-known professional in the fields of media, entertainment, and business, having established a distinguished career spanning over 27 years in corporate and entrepreneurial ventures. He was currently running a consulting firm collaborating with prominent media organizations, businesses, and start-ups. The Defendants were Telugu Actor, unidentified individuals/media houses, social media platform, video-sharing platform, a government entity regulating digital content, and digital media publishers. The dispute arose when the Defendant i.e., Manoj Manchu, embroiled in a family conflict with his father and brother, made defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff via tweets dated December 9 and 13, 2024, accusing him of manipulation and fabrication without substantiating the claims.
The allegations were further disseminated by various digital media platforms and social media users, portraying the Plaintiff as a central figure in the family feud. Media articles and videos on platforms run by the Defendants amplified these defamatory claims, tarnishing the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Plaintiff contends that these baseless and libelous allegations have caused irreparable harm to his goodwill and reputation, misleading the public and affecting his professional standing. Hence, he sought an ex-parte ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from further issuing, publishing, or disseminating any defamatory content against him.
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “The learned counsel for Defendant No. 9 countered this argument, stating that the article itself mentions that the plaintiff and the other parties were not available for their comments. However, during the course of arguments, both the parties were ad idem that the Defendant No. 9 would contact the Plaintiff and would publish his side of version or clarification without prejudice to their rights or contentions. Given the said undertaking by the learned counsel for the Defendant No. 9, the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that his prayer qua Defendant No. 9, as far as interim relief qua it is concerned, will stand satisfied.”
The Court, therefore, passed an ad interim ex-parte injunction against the Defendants in the following terms –
• Defendant No. 3 is also directed to ensure that all prima facie defamatory tweets posted by Defendant No.1 are deleted/removed within a period of one week from date, to prevent further damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation.
• Defendant No. 6 is directed to remove the prima facie defamatory articles or statements concerning the Plaintiff and his family, from its website.
• Defendant No. 7 (IndiaGlitz) is hereby directed to remove the article titled "Manchu Manoj Mentions Vinay Maheshwari's Name In Police Complaint; Do you know him?" published on December 10, 2024, along with any related defamatory content, from all platforms, websites, and social media outlets under its control or influence within one week from date. This includes ensuring that any copies of the article are taken down, and no further dissemination of the defamatory statements occurs.
• Defendant No. 8 is hereby directed to immediately remove the prima facie defamatory article titled “Mohan Babu vs. Manoj Manchu: Who is Vinay Maheshwari?” from its online platforms, websites, and any other media outlets where it has been published, and ensure that it is not accessible through any archives or databases maintained by the Defendant, as the content contains prima facie unverified and defamatory statements that can harm the reputation of Vinay Maheshwari.
• Defendant No. 10, Onmanorama, is directed to remove all articles and content implicating the Plaintiff in the Manchu family disputes, which prima facie contain speculative, unfounded, and defamatory statements.
• In light of the defamatory nature of the videos and articles published by Defendant No. 11, TeluguOne, which prima facie wrongfully accuse the Plaintiff of manipulation and causing discord within the Manchu family, it is directed that all such content be immediately removed from all platforms.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the compliance of the Order be made within two weeks.
Cause Title- Vinay Maheshwari v. Manoj Manchu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:10009)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, Advocates Rohit Jain, Avinash Kumar Sharma, Aslam Ahmad, Neha Khanduri, and Komal Sharma.
Defendants: Advocates Aditya Gupta, Asavari Jain, and Amit Bajaj.