New Delhi [India], April 30 (ANI): A Delhi district court has declined to entertain an appeal challenging an ex-parte takedown order linked to businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara, holding that the challenge is premature and not maintainable at this stage.

District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena at Tis Hazari Courts, in an order dated April 30, allowed an application seeking dismissal of the appeal filed by Moneywise Media LLP. The court observed that the statutory scheme governing interim injunctions requires parties to first pursue remedies before the trial court.

The court emphasised that appellate intervention cannot be invoked while proceedings under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC are still pending and within the prescribed timeframe.

Appearing for Sandesara, Advocates Tanmay Mehta and Hemant Shah opposed the appeal, submitting that it had been filed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period during which the trial court is expected to decide the injunction application. They argued that since the matter was already listed and being heard within this period, the appeal was not maintainable.

They further submitted that the trial court had complied with the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A CPC by fixing hearings within time. According to them, the appellant had already entered appearance and filed its vakalatnama and was being given an opportunity to contest the injunction, indicating that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Taking note of these submissions, the court held that an appeal cannot be entertained while the injunction application remains pending within the statutory period and that the appropriate course is to seek relief before the trial court.

The judge relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, reiterating that appellate courts may intervene only if the trial court fails to decide the injunction application within 30 days--something that had not occurred in the present case.

The court also distinguished judgments such as Bloomberg Television, observing that those decisions concerned unreasoned or defective injunction orders. In contrast, the April 4 order under challenge was noted to be a detailed and reasoned decision addressing the established legal tests for interim relief.

Holding the appeal to be premature, the court dismissed it while clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The matter arises from an ex-parte ad-interim injunction obtained by Sandesara directing platforms, including Google LLC and Meta, to remove and restrict access to content allegedly linking him and his family to the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case.

Separately, journalist Sucheta Dalal has challenged the scope of the order before a Delhi court, contending that her content was affected despite her not being made a party. (ANI)