Zee vs Bloomberg: Delhi High Court holds verdict on plea against order to remove Zee article

The Delhi High Court reserved its judgement on Thursday regarding the plea filed by Bloomberg against a trial court order instructing it to remove an allegedly defamatory article about Zee Entertainment Enterprises.

Justice Shalinder Kaur reserved the verdict and directed both parties to submit written arguments within five days.

The plea challenges an order issued by Additional District Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla of Saket Courts on March 01.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar represented Bloomberg in court and argued that the trial court's order lacked any justification or preliminary findings.

Nayar emphasised that Bloomberg, being a reputable media company, was not given the opportunity to present its case before the trial court judge issued the order.

On the other hand, advocate Vijay Aggarwal represented Zee and argued that there is no evidence on record to substantiate Bloomberg's allegations.

Earlier, Bloomberg filed a petition with the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court's order instructing it to remove an allegedly defamatory article to Zee Entertainment Enterprise ( ZEEL).

The plea challenges an order issued by Additional District Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla of Saket Courts on March 1.

The order was issued in response to a defamation suit filed by Zee Entertainment against Bloomberg Television Production Services India, the company that operates the online news platform, as well as the authors and researchers of the publication in question.

The article titled "India Regulator Uncovers $241 Million Accounting Issue at Zee" was published by Bloomberg on February 21. The trial court noted that Zee had established a prima facie case for granting interim ex-parte injunction orders, and the balance of convenience favoured Zee over Bloomberg.

It also stated that if the injunction were not granted, Zee could suffer irreparable loss and harm. It also prohibited the platform from posting, circulating, or publishing the article on any online or offline platform until March 26.

Zee argued that the article was defamatory and intended to tarnish its reputation, alleging a pre-meditated and malicious intent behind its publication. It was submitted that the contents of the article directly pertained to corporate governance and business operations of Zee and speculated the contents as truth. It was additionally argued that following the publication of the article, both Zee and its investors experienced losses, with the company's stock price dropping by 15%.

Zee asserted that the authors and researchers of the article had previously published numerous pieces against the company. However, the contested article went further by alleging illegal fund diversion without any substantiation.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com