判决
德里高等法院，CS(OS) 179/2023，Lokanath Swami v. Saraswati (Sara) Richardson Jones & Ors.：2023年3月15日的裁定（临时禁令）和2024年4月5日的裁定（撤诉），Indian Kanoon 发布的文本
德里高等法院（法官 Chandra Dhari Singh；法官 Dinesh Kumar Sharma）
Indian Kanoon 发布的两份裁定的文本，打印为 PDF（第1—4页：2023年3月15日；第5—6页：2024年4月5日，亦见 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94779506/ ）。法院本身签署的副本见德里高等法院的裁定门户网站。未作任何涂黑处理：当事方为原告和案件名称中列名的两名成年活动人士；裁定中未点名任何儿童。
德里高等法院，CS(OS) 179/2023，Lokanath Swami v. Saraswati (Sara) Richardson Jones & Ors.：2023年3月15日的裁定（临时禁令）和2024年4月5日的裁定（撤诉），Indian Kanoon 发布的文本
正在加载文件…
方向键翻页，+ 和 − 缩放，0 复原。
详细信息
附件
1每个文件均以其 SHA-256 哈希值存储。要核验下载的文件，请对其运行 sha256sum 并进行比对。
SHA-256
7cf49b75a70ba8cc3359a09edd17ffd81e875746395a24ca686e7d4690c51f53
提取的文本
为便于搜索而从文件中自动提取的文本。文件本身才是记录；引用前请核对原文件。
显示提取的文本
Text of the Delhi High Court order as published by Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28154215/
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]
Delhi High Court - Orders
H.H. Lokanath Swami Through Duly ... vs Ms. Saraswati
(Sara) Richardson Jones & ... on 15 March, 2023
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (OS) 179/2023
H.H, LOKANATH SWAMI THROUGH DULY CONSTITUTED
POWER OF ATTORNEY RALF STEFAN GIESENHAUS S/O
VOLKER GIESENHAUS
eee Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rakesh Taneja, Advocate
versus
MS. SARASWATI (SARA) RICHARDSON JONES & ORS.
Defendants
Through: Mr. Ajay Garg, Ms. Tripti
Gola, Ms.
Lhing Deihat Chongloi and Mr.
Arvind Sardana, Advocates for
D-1
and D-2
Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Varun
Pathak,
Ms. Amee Rana, Ms. Vibhuti
Vashisht and Ms. Ramayani
Sood,
Advocates for D-3
Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advocate
for D-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 15.03.2023
I.A. 5001/2023 (Exemption)
Subject to the plaintiff filing the clear, original and legible/typed copies of any dim documents on
which the plaintiff may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted for
the present.
The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 179/2023
1. The instant plaint has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants thus directing the defendants for immediately resorting to pulling down/
withdrawing any and all imputations, as narrated above, made against the Plaintiff from
the social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and/or any other platforms not
in the knowledge and/or reach of the plaintiff, where the defendants might have
published the alleged imputations; and
b) Pass a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants thus directing the defendants to immediately refrain and desist from
posting, or permitting to be posted, on any and all accounts under their respective
controls, any content defaming the plaintiff, now and in the future; and
c) Pass an order thus directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to tender an unconditional
apology to the plaintiff to his satisfaction through both print and electronic media; and
d) Pass a money decree thus directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rupees
2,25,000,00 (Rupees Two Crores and Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) as
damages/compensation jointly and severally to the plaintiff for defaming the plaintiff;
and
e) Award cost of litigation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for having
to bring the instant proceedings before this Hon'ble Court for all the reasons attributable
to the conduct of the defendants; and
f) Pass such other order or orders, alternatively or in addition as may be deemed just and
proper in the interests of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
3. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
4. Issue summons to defendants. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 4
accepted summons.
5. The written statement(s) shall be filed within thirty days by the defendants no. 1 to 4 from the date
of receipt of summons.
6. Along with the written statement(s), the defendants no. 1 to 4 shall also file affidavit of
admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not
be taken on record.
7. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication(s), if any, within thirty days from the receipt of the
written statement(s). Alongwith the replication(s) filed by the plaintiff, affidavit of admission/denial
of the documents of the defendants be filed by the plaintiff.
8. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 25th April, 2023 for completion of pleadings.
g. List before the Court on 7th August, 2023.
L.A. 5000/2023 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2)
1. The instant application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
"a) pass an ex-parte ad-interim order thus directing the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to
remove the impugned imputations posted against the plaintiff by defendant Nos. 1 and 2,
as pointed out in paragraph 6 of the accompanying captioned suit, from their social
media platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with immediate effect, not permit
further such and similar postings by the defendants 1 and 2 until the pendency of the
present suit and/or until further orders by this Hon'ble Court;
b) to confirm the above said prayer after notice to the other side; and
c) to pass such other or further order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just
and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff is a 73-year-old sanyasi
(monk), and a law-abiding citizen, who has never been charged with any crime in India, or in any
other country. It is submitted that the plaintiff has approached this Court to seek protection, against
the mala fide imputations made by the defendants no. 1 and 2, by the grant of a decree of mandatory
injunction directing them for immediately removing, pulling down and withdrawing any and all
imputations made against the plaintiff over various Social Media Platforms including Facebook,
Instagram and Twitter and also to tender an unconditional apology to the plaintiff to his satisfaction
through both print and electronic media.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff is further
praying for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants to refrain and desist
from posting, or permitting to be posted, on any and all accounts under their respective controls, any
content denigrating or defaming the plaintiff, now and in the future.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the imputations posted online
by the defendants no. 1 and 2 using the social media platforms owned and operated by the defendants
no. 3 and 4 have the effect of maligning and tarnishing the hard-earned reputation of the plaintiff in
relation to his status that he holds by virtue of his association with ISKCON for over 50 years as a
spiritual guru and preacher.
5. It is also stated that these statements of the defendants no. 1 and 2 have exposed the plaintiff to
hatred and contempt and have the potential to mislead the plaintiff's disciples and followers
worldwide thereby adversely affecting the plaintiff's life and missionary work. In view of the above,
immense and irreparable damage shall be caused to the plaintiff if the interim injunction is not
granted; therefore a prima facie case is made out as well as the balance of convenience lies in favour
of the plaintiff.
6. Issue notice. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the defendants no. 1 to 4 accepted notice.
7. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently opposed the instant application as well as the
averments and prayers made therein. It is stated that the instant plaint as well as the application in
light of the facts and circumstances does not make out a case for grant of ad interim injunction.
8. Keeping in view the contents of the plaint and having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff,
this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to make out a good prima facie case in his
favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. At
this juncture on the basis of the material before it, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is
likely to suffer grave irreparable injury to his reputation in case an ad interim injunction is not
granted, and the posts made by the defendants no. 1 and 2 are not taken down.
g. Accordingly, in view of the prima facie case being made out as well as in the interests of justice, this
Court is inclined to grant ad interim injunction. It is thus directed as under:
a. The defendants no. 1 and 2 are forthwith directed to delete the said objectionable
posts/content as expeditiously as possible within the next 24 hours;
b. The plaintiff is also directed to provide the URLs of any/all objectionable
content/imputations made by the defendants no.1 and 2 against him to the defendants
no.3 and 4 for appropriate action by the intermediaries;
c. In case of failure of the defendants no. 1 and 2 to delete the said content within 24
hours, the defendants no.3 and 4 are directed to take down all/any objectionable
posts/content posted by the defendants no. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff on their
respective platforms; and d. The defendants no. 1 and 2 also restrained from making any
comments/imputations against the plaintiff herein in the future, using any medium or
platform including that of defendants no. 3 and 4.
10. Reply(ies) be filed within four weeks.
11. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
12. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 25th April, 2023 for completion of pleadings.
13. List before the Court on 7th August, 2023.
14. Dasti CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MARCH 15, 2023 gs/ak Click here to check corrigendum, if
any
Text of the Delhi High Court order as published by Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94779506/
[Cites 0, Cited by o]
Delhi High Court - Orders
H.H. Lokanath Swami Through Duly ... vs Ms. Saraswati
(Sara) Richardson Jones & ... on 5 April, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI
CS (OS) 179/2023, T.A. 5000/2023, T.A.
7171/2023, I.A. 8185/2023,
T.A. 8196/2023, I.A. 8224/2023, I.A.
17835/2023, I.A. 17857/2023,
T.A. 7647/2024
H.H. LOKANATH SWAMI THROUGH DULY
CONSTITUTED
POWER OF ATTORNEY RALF STEFAN
GIESENHAUS S/O
VOLKER GIESENHAUS
eee Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rakesh
Taneja, Mr. Shivang
Goel,
Advs.
Versus
MS. SARASWATI (SARA) RICHARDSON JONES
see Defendants
Through: Mr. Ajay
Garg, Ms. Tripti Gola, Mr.
Uday
Garg, Ms. Lhingdeihat
Chongloi,
Ms. Surbhi Soni, Advs. for
D-1 & 2.
Mr. Tejas
Karia, Mr. Varun Pathak,
Ms. Amee
Rana, Ms. Vibhuti Vasisth,
Ms.
Ramayni Sood, Advs. for D-3.
Mr.
Deepak Gojia, Mr. Aadhar
Nautiyal,
Advs. for D-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR
SHARMA
ORDER
% 05.04.2024 Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw the present suit with
liberty to file fresh suit with the same cause of action.
Liberty granted.
In view of the submissions made, the present suit along with pending applications stands dismissed
as withdrawn.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 5, 2024/AR..
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the
QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2024 at 21:38:12引用于
1- 指控对一名11岁女孩的不当性触碰，新泽西州，1990年Lokanath Swami