Delhi HC Dismisses Saket Gokhale's Petition to Recall Defamation Damages in Lakshmi Puri Case
New Delhi [India], May 2 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed applications filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale, who sought to recall an order directing him to pay Rs50 lakh in damages and publicly apologise to Lakshmi Puri, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a defamation case.
The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Gaurav, while dismissing the petition moved by Saket Gokhle, appreciated the submissions made by Gokhle's lawyers Amarjit Singh Bedi and Harsha Vinoy.
Puri was represented by Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate, who was briefed by Karanjawala & Company through Meghna Mishra, Senior Partner, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi, and Rohit Kumar, Associates.
The court passed the order in the application filed by Saket Gokhale under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the recall of the judgment and Decree dated July 1, 2024.
By way of the Judgement and Decree dated July 1, 2024, the Court had directed Gokhale to tender and publish a public apology to Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri within four weeks. Additionally, Gokhale was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to Ms Puri within eight weeks.
During the hearing, Gokhale's counsel had urged the court to adopt a 'liberal approach' and conveyed that the MP does not currently have the financial means to pay the damages. However, the offer was firmly rejected by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Lakshmi Puri.
Recently, another bench of the Delhi High Court issued an order for the attachment of a portion of the salary of Saket Gokhale, a Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress (TMC). The court directed that the salary will remain under attachment until a total sum of Rs 50 lakh is deposited in the court.
This directive came during the hearing of a petition filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Puri, who accused Gokhale of failing to comply with the court's previous instructions in a defamation case she had filed against him.
In July of last year, the court had directed Gokhale to issue an apology to Puri and pay her Rs 50 lakh as damages. Justice Manmeet Pritam Arora's bench observed that no reasonable explanation had been provided for the non-payment of the decretal amount, warranting the issuance of an attachment order under Section 60(i) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The court reviewed the provisions of Section 60 of the CPC concerning the attachment of Saket Gokhale's salary, which is reported to be Rs 1.9 lakh per month. Referring to the legal framework, the court noted that, as per the CPC, up to two-thirds of the salary could be attached.
The defamation case originated in 2021 after Gokhale published a series of tweets questioning a property purchase made by Puri in Switzerland. His posts raised concerns regarding her and Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri's assets.
Additionally, Gokhale tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in his tweets, calling for an ED investigation.
In its July 2023 ruling, the High Court deemed the tweets defamatory, citing Shakespeare's Othello to emphasise the damage inflicted on Puri's reputation.
As part of the judgement, Gokhale was directed to publicly apologise in The Times of India and on his Twitter account, where the apology must remain pinned for six months.
Earlier, in July 2021, the court had issued an interim injunction, mandating Gokhale to remove the tweets within 24 hours and barring him from making further defamatory statements. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka High Court issues interim stay on basketball stadium project at open playground in Bengaluru's Indiranagar
The Karnataka High Court issued an interim stay last week on the conversion of a basketball court at Victory Ground in Bengaluru's Indiranagar, the only open playground in the area, into an enclosed stadium with facilities such as parking. This was after the Indiranagar First Stage Residents' Welfare Association moved the court against the construction of the stadium by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in the popular playground that locals had used for decades. A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Venkatesh Naik on May 29 ordered a stay on construction and posted the case for the next hearing on June 10. The Indiranagar first stage RWA asked the court to restrain the BBMP from proceeding with the construction of the stadium under a tender award dated August 14, 2024, and a work order dated March 21, 2025. The RWA also pleaded for the restoration and maintenance of the playground area of the Victory Ground. The proposed stadium, to be built at an estimated cost of Rs 6.5 crore, will convert the existing basketball court used for coaching by the Indiranagar Basketball Club, a private club, into a stadium. Despite protests by local residents, the state government proceeded with the groundbreaking ceremony for the proposed conversion of the basketball court into a stadium at the Victory Ground on May 8. The RWA then dubbed the day of the groundbreaking ceremony a 'black day'. The groundbreaking ceremony was attended by the Karnataka chief minister's political secretary and MLC K Govindaraj, who also announced the government's interest in constructing the stadium. Govindaraj is also the president of the Karnataka State Basketball Association and the Karnataka Olympic Association. The basketball court was walled off as a separate enclosure in the playground over three decades ago. A similar proposal in 2017 to convert the basketball court into an indoor stadium was halted following opposition from residents and a stay order from the Karnataka High Court.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Lawyers don't need to wear black coats in summer: Delhi Bar Association
In a major relief to lawyers practising in the Capital amidst the scorching heat, the Delhi Bar Association (DBA) has decided that advocates will be exempt from wearing black coats, their usual dress code, from May 16 to September 30. Rules framed under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, prescribe a dress code for all practising advocates. This comprises a black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan (a knee-length upper garment with long sleeves, side slits and a standing collar), black sherwani and white bands with advocate's gown for men advocates. Women advocates have to wear a black and full or half-sleeve jacket or blouse, white collar, stiff or soft, and white bands with advocates' gowns or sarees and long skirts (white or black without any design). 'All the members are hereby informed that advocates are exempted from wearing a black coat during summer (from May 16 to September 30) as per amendment in rules under Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act,1961,' DBA said in a circular dated May 24. 'Therefore, the members are at liberty to appear in the Courts subordinate to the Delhi High Court without wearing a black coat… The members are, however, advised to adhere to other rules of the dress code…,' the circular issued by Vikas Goyal, Secretary, DBA, said. DBA also said the district and sessions judges of various court complexes across Delhi have been informed of this decision. 'This is a very good step. The weather is very erratic and humid. In June, the heat will be way worse. This should be done by all Bar Associations and Councils across North India,' said Advocate Dhir Singh Kasana, former Saket Bar Association secretary. 'Indian district courts lack proper infrastructure in terms of fans, air conditioners, unhygienic washrooms, and sitting rooms, coupled with rising temperatures, it has become a daily physical and mental challenge for the advocates to wear black coats during court hours, especially in summer…This move is a welcome step towards the welfare of the advocates practising at district courts,' Advocate Paras Jain, who practices in Delhi, said. On February 27 this year, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) issued a circular stating that advocates need not wear black coats from March 1 to June 30 every year. Similarly, Bhopal's Bar Council gave a similar exemption to lawyers from April 15 to July 15, 2025.
Scroll.in
44 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
After demolitions in Delhi's Madrasi Camp, Tamil Nadu offers support to families
The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday said that it will support families looking to return to their native districts after their homes in the Madrasi Camp in New Delhi's Jangpura area were demolished. The decades-old camp, built overlooking the Barapullah drain near Nizamuddin Railway Station, housed 370 tenements and was predominantly inhabited by families originally from Tamil Nadu. On Sunday, the Delhi Development Authority demolished the homes in the camp on the directions of the Delhi High Court, The Indian Express reported. The Delhi government was directed to relocate the families as the camp was allegedly blocking the Barapullah drain, which was leading to waterlogging. Hours after the demolition, the Tamil Nadu government stated that it was in 'active coordination' with the residents of the Madrasi Camp to ensure every possible support was extended to them without delay. It added that Chief Minister MK Stalin had directed the Tamil Nadu House in New Delhi, the guest house of the state government, to facilitate and oversee the coordination efforts. 'Comprehensive support, including assistance for livelihood and other essential needs, will be extended to them,' said the state government. 'This assistance will be facilitated through the offices of the concerned District Collectors to ensure timely and effective implementation.' Describing the Madrasi Camp as an 'unauthorised encroachment', the High Court on May 9 directed authorities to clear the area along the Barapullah drain. It said the camp was obstructing drainage and causing severe waterlogging in the surrounding areas during the monsoons. The court had also directed that eligible residents be rehabilitated and relocated under provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act and the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, The New Indian Express reported. Subsequently, the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board determined that only 215 out of the 370 residents in the camp were eligible for housing. These families were allotted residential units in Narela, a northern suburb over 35 kms from the camp, The Indian Express reported. The remaining 155 families had reportedly failed to meet documentation or eligibility criteria. The settlement, which is more than six decades old, housed Tamil-speaking migrants who had arrived in the national capital seeking employment as domestic workers, cooks and daily-wage labourers.
