Live
- Three persons admitted to hospital for diarrhea treatment
- First Star Outside Milky Way Captured: WOH G64 is 2,000 Times Larger Than the Sun
- Sikkim govt to constitute state Niti Ayog: CM Tamang
- CBI books Rajasthan narcotics inspector for Rs 3 lakh bribe
- Rajasthan bypolls: A tough contest between BJP and Congress
- Albania joins SEPA, paving way for EU integration
- Japanese government approves 250-billion USD economic package to ease price pain
- Six pharma companies to set up their units in Telangana
- The Unstable Events of a 17-Wicket Day in Perth: India vs Australia
- Dutch FM's Israel trip cancelled after Netanyahu's arrest warrant
Cash-for-query row: Delhi HC rejects interim injunction against 'defamatory' posts on Mahua Moitra
TMC MP Mahua Moitra
The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in a defamation suit against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai pertaining to alleged defamatory content posted by them on social media regarding the "cash-for-query" allegations against her.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in a defamation suit against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai pertaining to alleged defamatory content posted by them on social media regarding the "cash-for-query" allegations against her.
Justice Sachin Datta denied Moitra's application for an ad-interim injunction, refusing to restrain Dubey and Dehadrai from posting the contested content at this stage.
The court had reserved its judgement on Moitra's application on December 20, 2023.
"I've dismissed the injunction application," stated the court
Justice Datta had earlier asked about any quid pro quo between Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani, stressing the need for clarification.
Moitra, who was expelled as a Lok Sabha MP on December 8 last year by the Ethics Committee of the Parliament, faced allegations of receiving cash in exchange for posing questions in the House on behalf of Hiranandani.
The advocates representing Dubey and Dehadrai had earlier alleged that there was a quid pro quo between Moitra and Hiranandani, citing Para 68 of the Ethics Committee's report that led to Moitra's expulsion from the Lok Sabha.
The court had then reserved the order on Moitra's interim injunction application, instructing Dubey and Dehadrai's counsels to provide the relevant portion of the Ethics Committee's report for consideration.
Moitra had moved the high court against Dubey, Dehadrai, 15 media organisations and three social media intermediaries following what she alleged were false and defamatory accusations against her.
Dubey's counsel, advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, had argued that Moitra has committed perjury and that she also shared her Parliament login credentials.
The defamation suit came after Moitra issued a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai and several media outlets, vehemently denying any wrongdoing.
Dubey had lodged a complaint with the Lok Sabha Speaker, claiming that Moitra had accepted bribes for raising questions in the Parliament. According to Dubey, the allegations stemmed from a letter addressed to him by Dehadrai.
Moitra had then allegedly filed two police complaints dated March 24 and September 23 against Dehadrai and the same were later withdrawn by her on account of settlement talks.
Moitra's legal notice said that Dubey, for immediate political gains, regurgitated the false and defamatory allegations contained in the letter sent to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It further claimed that both Dubey and Dehadrai are directly responsible for tarnishing Moitra's reputation for their own personal and political motives.
