Mumbai: In a defamation suit filed by a woman, the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief, restraining the defendants from making or publishing defamatory statements against her. The plaintiff, Advocate Pragathi Malle, alleged that false and malicious statements made by the defendants caused significant harm to her professional reputation.

The case centers around a police complaint filed by Malle against Siddharth Nambiar, an employee of the human resource department of Peninsula Land Limited, alleging forgery of her signature on a document. The spokesperson of the company was not available for comment.

Following this, Malle claimed that Nambiar contacted her former employers – Ruparel Realty Group and Ashwin Seth Group – and she was subjected to defamatory emails exchanged between the defendants.

One Ram Iyer responded on behalf of Ruparel Realty Group to Nambiar’s email and Prabhakar Azad on behalf of Ashwin Sheth Group. Iyer and Azad are named as defendants 3 and 4 respectively.

Malle’s counsel, Sharan Jagtiani, argued that emails dated May 3 and May 4, 2024, exchanged between the defendants, falsely insinuated that Malle had misrepresented her employment history, had integrity issues, and exhibited unprofessional behavior. These emails were sent under the pretext of reference checks, despite Malle having left Peninsula Land Limited.

Jagtiani also highlighted a subsequent email from Malle’s two previous employers clarifying that the defamatory statements made in emails sent by their representatives were unauthorized and incorrect.

Malle alleged that these defamatory emails led to her termination from Raheja Universal Private Limited within five days of joining. Jagtiani submitted that the emails were part of a concerted effort by Nambiar, Peninsula Land Limited and Peninsula’s CFO Gangadharan Naluketteungal (Defendant 1, 2, and 5 respectively) to coerce her into withdrawing the forgery complaint.

Counsel for the defendants – Archit Jayakar and Yohaann Limathwalla – countered that the emails were merely fact-finding communications and were not defamatory. They argued that no publication occurred, as the emails were addressed to specific individuals and not the public domain.

Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla ruled in Malle’s favor, finding the emails to be defamatory and noting that publication to even one person constitutes defamation. The court observed that the defendants’ actions had caused tangible harm to Malle’s career and reputation.

“Considering the fact that the said emails contain false and defamatory statements under the guise of a reference check, when the Plaintiff had already left the Defendant No. 2 Company, I prima facie accept the case of the Plaintiff that she was asked to leave Raheja Universal Limited within 5 days of joining as Defendant No. 1, in connivance with Defendant Nos. 2 and 5, communicated to Raheja Universal Limited about the defamatory emails,” Justice Pooniwalla said.

The judge added: “Not only false and defamatory statements have been made against the Plaintiff but actual injury has been caused to the Plaintiff because of these false and defamatory statements. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Jayakar that the emails addressed by Defendant No. 1 were only fact finding emails as these emails contain false insinuations against the Plaintiff which are defamatory of the Plaintiff.”

The court granted interim relief, restraining the defendants from publishing or communicating defamatory statements against Malle. Additionally, the defendants were barred from contacting Malle’s past, present, or future employers regarding her employment.