Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a suit seeking permanent injunction against allegedly defamatory publications concerning the much-publicised issue of Tirupati Tirumala laddu adulteration, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., refused to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction without giving opportunity to the defendants to present their defence.
In the instant matter, the grievance of the plaintiffs, including the former Chairman of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), arises from publications made by defendants 1 to 8, levelling allegations of serious wrongdoing against them in relation to the procurement of ghee for the Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Tirumala, “one of the holiest shrines to all persons who are following faith of Hinduism.”
Relying on Bloomberg Television Production Services India (P) Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426, the Court noted that “ex-parte ad interim injunctions could only be granted under exceptional circumstances.” On a prima facie consideration, the Court noted that they are not inclined to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction. The Court observed that “it would only be reasonable to give an opportunity to the defendants to present their defence in respect of their publications/posts/articles.”
While declining interim relief at that stage, the Court clarified that any publications, posts or articles made after the date of the order would be “after being put to the notice by this Court and would have its own consequences.”
The Court issued notices to the defendants, granted time for filing replies and rejoinders, and the listed the matter on 29-01-2026 for further consideration.
[Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy v. Ushodaya Enterprises (P) Ltd., CS(OS) 954/2025, Decided on 23-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Agrawal, Mr. Sahil Raveen, Mr. Rahul Kukreja, Mr. Jatin Shrivastava, Ms. Radhika Yadav and Ms. Akanksha Chauhan, Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Ms. Bina Gupta and Ms. Anushka Rawal, Counsel for the Defendants 5 and 6
Ms. Mamta Rani, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rohan Ahujha, Ms. Aiswarya Debardarshini and Ms. Jahanvi Agarwal, Counsel for the Defendant 9