Court upholds earlier direction; finds no grounds to interfere with order removing disputed reports
A court has dismissed an appeal challenging an order directing removal of reports published by Moneylife that linked businessman Manoj Sandesara to Sterling Biotech, upholding the earlier ruling.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from reports published by Moneylife which allegedly linked Manoj Sandesara to the Sterling Biotech case.
Sandesara had earlier approached the court seeking removal of these reports, contending that the publications were defamatory and caused reputational harm.
The trial court had directed removal of the impugned content, prompting Moneylife to file an appeal against the order.
Proceedings Before the Court
The appellate court examined the challenge to the removal order and considered whether the earlier direction warranted interference.
Moneylife argued that the reports were based on available material and were published in public interest.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the publications were misleading and unjustified, and that the removal order was necessary to prevent reputational damage.
Court’s Observations
The Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the earlier order directing removal of the reports.
It held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or error in the trial court’s reasoning.
The Court emphasised that appellate interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from clear illegality or perversity, which was not established in the present case.
Final Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Court upheld the order directing removal of the reports linking Manoj Sandesara to Sterling Biotech.
