Bombay High Court
SAIFEE HOSPITAL TRUSTversusASIYA KHAN LUQMAN
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The consent terms are duly executed, the defendants are ordered to delete the defamatory posts, intermediaries must act if they fail, and the suit is disposed of against all parties.
Summary
The Saifee Hospital Trust filed a defamation suit against Dr. Asiya Khan Luqman and other defendants for allegedly defamatory tweets and posts. The plaintiff later amended the suit to implead additional defendants (Nos. 5‑24) who had republished the material. The parties executed consent terms, which the court verified as voluntarily signed, and the court recorded them. The court ordered the newly impleaded defendants to delete the offending online posts within 36 hours and directed the intermediary platforms to remove the content if the defendants failed to comply. Following the settlement, the suit and all interim applications were disposed of without any order as to costs, and the court ordered a refund of court fees.
Issues considered
- The validity and enforceability of the executed consent terms.
- Whether the court can compel defendants to delete defamatory online content.
- The liability of intermediary platforms to remove defamatory material upon non‑compliance by defendants.
- The procedural propriety of disposing the suit after settlement.
Subjects
- defamation
- social media
- online content removal
- interim application
- consent decree
- intermediary liability
- civil suit
- settlement
Judgment
904.31044.26-IAL.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.307 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.31100 OF 2026
AND
BASAVRAJ
GURAPPA INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.31044 OF 2026
PATIL AND
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30950 OF 2026
PATIL
Date: 2026.10.01
IN
19:11:58 +0530
SUIT NO.307 OF 2026
Saifee Hospital Trust … Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Asiya Khan Luqman & Ors. … Defendants
__
Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Tushad Kakalia, Ms. Fatema
Kachwalla, Mr. Dishay Chitalia and Ms. Maitri Dedhia i/b. J.
Sagar Associates for the Plaintiff
Mr. Hersh Choudhary i/b NYAAYA Legal for Defendant No.1
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar a/w. Mr. Ayush Tiwari i/b. Shekhar
Bhagat for Defendant No.2
Mr. Rishabh Jaisani with Mr. Harit Lakhani and Mr. Abhishek
Mookherjee i/b. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas for Defendant
No.3
Mr. Vijay Hiremath i/b. Swaraj Jadhav for proposed Defendant
No.4
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026
P.C.
1. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 have
tendered Consent Terms, by which they submit that all differences
Basavraj Page|
904.31044.26-IAL.DOC
and disputes in the captioned Suit between their respective clients
have been amicably resolved in the manner more particularly set out
in the consent terms.
2. The execution of the Consent Terms is supported by a Consent
Verification Report of the Associate of this Court. The said Consent
Verification Report, inter alia, records as follows:
“The Consent Terms are signed by the parties out of their
free will without any undue influence and coercion. The
signatories have admitted the contents of the Consent
Terms. Hence, the Consent Terms are duly executed by
the signatories.”
3. Hence, Consent Terms having been duly executed, the same are
taken on record and marked “X” for identification.
4. Mr. Tamboly has then pointed out that though the Suit was
originally filed on account of the defamatory tweets/posts about the
Plaintiff which were published by Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff had to
amend the Suit to implead Defendant Nos. 5 to 24 since the offending
tweets/publications had either been republished by Defendant Nos. 5
to 24 or then the same defamatory material had been republished in a
slightly changed form with certain embellishments added by these
Basavraj Page|
904.31044.26-IAL.DOC
Defendants. He points out that Defendant Nos 5 to 24, though duly
served, have not appeared.
5. Mr. Tamboly has then invited my attention to the
tweets/publications made by Defendant Nos. 5 to 24, the relevant
URLs of which are set out in Exhibit C-1 to the Plaint. I have perused
the same and am satisfied that the said tweets/publications flow
entirely from the original tweets/publications of Defendant No. 1, all of
which pertain to the Plaintiff-Hospital and all of which, in my view, are
per se defamatory of the Plaintiff. These posts therefore also must be
taken down, more so when none of the Defendants have so much as
even chosen to appear and justify the same. Accordingly, Defendant
Nos. 5 to 24 are directed to take down and delete the posts/URLs
specified in Exhibit C-1 within 36 hours of being served with a copy of
this Order. It is clarified that a copy of this Order may also be served
upon the respective social media handlers/platforms on which the said
tweets/posts appear.
6. It is further clarified that, in the event that Defendant Nos. 5 to
24 fail to take down and delete the said tweets/posts within the time
Basavraj Page|
904.31044.26-IAL.DOC
stipulated above, the respective intermediaries, i.e., Respondent Nos.
2 and 3, on whose platforms the said tweets/posts appear, shall take
them down forthwith upon being intimated by the Advocate for the
Plaintiff of the non-compliance of any of Defendants of this Order.
7. Mr. Tamboly then submits that the Plaintiff would not wish to
further precipitate the Suit against Defendant Nos. 2 to 24. The Suit is
accordingly disposed of against all the Defendants.
8. The Interim Applications would not survive and are also
accordingly disposed of.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Refund of Court Fees, as per the Rules.
11. Liberty to apply.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Basavraj Page|
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.