Team Goemkarponn
Panaji: The Bombay High Court has passed an interim restraint order in a defamation suit filed by House of Abhinandan Lodha Private Limited and another plaintiff against Swapnesh Bhanudas Sherlekar and others over allegedly defamatory statements circulated online, including material linked to an Instagram handle named “Goa_4_Goans”.
Justice Arif S. Doctor, hearing the matter on May 7, directed that statements referred to in Exhibit-L of the plaint “shall not further be disseminated to the public at large” until the next date of hearing.
The order came in an Interim Application filed in Suit (L) No. 16309 of 2026 before the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Senior Advocate Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar, appearing for the plaintiffs along with legal counsel, argued before the court that several statements circulated online were “per se defamatory” and were causing grave harm to the plaintiffs’ reputation. According to the order, the plaintiffs submitted that the statements were being widely reported and disseminated among the public.
The court was informed that amendments had been sought to the plaint to include extracts of the allegedly defamatory material for convenience. The amendment was allowed without opposition, and the plaintiffs were granted liberty to carry out the amendment within a week.
Counsel appearing for Defendant No.1 opposed immediate interim relief and sought time to file a reply affidavit. The defence argued that there was no urgency in the matter since the statements dated back to 2024 and were allegedly connected to proceedings pending before the Goa Bench of the High Court in a public interest litigation.
The defence further submitted that the statements were based on what it described as cogent material. Questions were also raised regarding jurisdiction, with the defendant contending that the cause of action had arisen in Goa.
During the hearing, the defence also pointed out that several statements referred to in Exhibit-L had allegedly been made by one Nikita Pednekar, who was named in the plaint but had not yet been added as a party to the proceedings.
In response, the plaintiffs informed the court that steps would be taken to amend the plaint and implead Nikita Pednekar.
After hearing both sides, Justice Doctor observed that the defendant could be granted time to justify the statements attributed to him through a reply affidavit. However, the court noted that, after perusing Exhibit-L, the plaintiffs were justified in seeking protection against further dissemination of the statements pending further consideration of the matter.
The High Court directed that the amended plaint be served on all defendants within one week. Reply affidavits are to be filed within three weeks from service of the amended plaint.
The matter has now been adjourned to July 2, 2026.
The interim order does not amount to a final adjudication on the merits of the allegations or defences raised by either side.
