[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
House Of Abhinandan Lodha vs Atulyam Infratech Private Limited on 1 April, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P7.SL.11542.2026+.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT (L) NO.11542 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.11640 OF 2026
House of Abhinandan Lodha Private Limited .. Plaintiff
Versus
Atulyam Infratech Private Limited and Ors. .. Defendants
....................
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w. Mr. Rashid Boatwall, Ms. Lipsa
Unadkat, Mr. Pranav Kethineni, Advocates i/by Manilal Kher
Ambalal & Co. for Plaintiff / Applicant.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated
01.04.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Mr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Plaintiff /
Applicant.
3. Mr. Chandrachud seeks urgent intervention and indulgence
of the Court while drawing my attention to the post LinkedIn, copy of
which is appended at Exhibit-I, page No.126. That post is by
Defendant No.2 who is Director of Defendant No.1. He would submit
that mere title of the said post and further contents thereof are prima
facie defamatory in the context of the name and business operations of
the Plaintiff causing substantial reputational damage. He would
submit that Defendant No.1 was appointed as a sub-broker to market
1 of 4
P7.SL.11542.2026+.doc
the business of Plaintiff. He would inform the Court and necessary
averment to that effect is made in the Suit plaint about he having filed
a Suit for compensation of Rs.5 Crores which is referred to mediation
by Delhi High Court. He would submit that nexus is prima facie
evident from the contentious post appended at Exhibit-I.
4. However labelling Plaintiff as one of the biggest real estate
scams of recent times and labelling direct insinuations to the Plaintiff
having promoted his project by impersonating association with the
term 'Lodha' as a sister Company and used the same as key marketing
pitch is prima facie incorrect. This is so because admittedly the
nomenclature of the Plaintiff namely HOABL as it stands for has been
segregated and separated from the word / term 'Lodha' which is of the
sister concern.
5. What is disturbing is the fact that considering the expanse of
the business of the Plaintiff, Dr. Chandrachud would draw my
attention to page No.130 onwards wherein substantial number of
comments have been garnered to the said post, inter alia, stating that
the Plaintiff is a fraud builder thereby affecting its reputation, brand
and causing substantial damage.
6. Considering that pre-Suit mediation has been invoked in the
commercial Suit filed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Delhi High
Court, the disparaging remarks, words and tagline used in the post
2 of 4
P7.SL.11542.2026+.doc
appended at page No.126 in my opinion is prima facie defamatory for
the simple reason that no citizen of this country can label Companies
by such extreme superlative taglines and title in an insinuating way in
the manner which it is done and as can be read from page No.1226.
7. In that view of the matter, an arguable case has been made
out by Dr. Chandrachud for grant of immediate ex parte ad-interim
reliefs after perusing the grounds.
8. Ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (iii) of
the Interim Application which reads thus:-
"iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to pass an Order and Injunction, restraining the
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either by themselves or through their
employees, agents, officers, assign, representatives or associates
from further publishing any defamatory material in respect of the
Applicant in any manner and on any forum and through any
form of media whatsoever and from further making any
defamatory/offending statements/ letters/ correspondences
against the Applicant with regard to the subject matter of the
defamatory publications."
9. Dr. Chandrachud would persuade me to consider grant of
prayer clauses (i) and (iv) in view of the fact that the impugned post
has garnered several likes and comments, transcripts of which are
placed before the Court which infact amplify and call for further
insinuations and damage causing to the name and prospects of
Plaintiff.
3 of 4
P7.SL.11542.2026+.doc
10. Dr. Chandrachud has made out a case. Hence, I am inclined
to issue notice to Defendants.
11. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's notice, Applicant /
Plaintiff is directed to serve the Defendants a copy of this order, Suit
and Interim Application forthwith and inform about the next date of
hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate
affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.
12. Defendants are directed to remain present on the next
adjourend date on which date the request made by Dr. Chandrachud
for grant of prayer clauses (i) and (iv) shall be considered by the Court
after hearing Defendants.
13. Stand over to 08th April 2026. To be placed under the
caption 'First on Board'.
14. Praecipe is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.04.01
17:10:58 +0530
4 of 4
