Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. AKBAR SIDDIQUE,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No.863/2025
MUKESH GAHLOT
…… Plaintiff
VERSUS
JAI KARAN
.......Defendant
ORDER:24.02.2026
APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY UNDER
ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2:
1. Vide the present Order, I shall decide the application for Ad-
Interim Ex-Parte Stay under Order 39 RULE 1 & 2.
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for
defamation and recovery of damages, permanent and
mandatory injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff is
praying for following reliefs:
a. Pass a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Ninety-Five Lakhs Only) with interest pendente-
lite and future @18% p.a. in favour of the plaintiff and
against defendant.
b. Pass decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing
the defendant to tender unconditional apology by way of
publishing notice in two national dailies and social
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 1/10
-- 1 of 10 --
media platforms thereby apologizing for the false
accusations made against the plaintiff.
c. Pass decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing
the defendant to remove all the defamatory and
derogatory post pertaining to the plaintiff from all the
social media platforms.
d. Pass decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining
the defendant from circulating/publishing/posting
defamatory and derogatory post on social media and any
other platform
e. Award cost of the suit to the plaintiff against the
defendant.
3. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
3.1. It is the case of plaintiff Mr. Mukesh Gahlot, that he
is a world renowned and well-respected powerlifter,
having accolades and achievements at international
level. The plaintiff has also made the country proud
on global platforms by securing Mr. India titles in the
year 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012, along with silver
medal at the 2012 Asian body building championship.
The plaintiff's transition into powerlifting established
his legacy as he won gold medal at the British open
powerlifting championship in the year 2012 and a
bronze medal at Olympia Powerlifting Division in the
year 2018. The past and present achievements of the
plaintiff have led him being popularly addressed as
"Guru Ji" in the sport of body building fraternity and
in circle of his acquaintances.
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 2/10
-- 2 of 10 --
3.2. Further, the plaintiff beyond his competitive career is
also a social media influencer having a following of
more than 2.4 million followers on the social media
platform i.e. Instagram wherein he educates public at
large about the scope of powerlifting and
bodybuilding as a viable career opportunity. Further,
plaintiff owns a gym, famously known as
"Dronacharya Gym", wherein he trains aspiring
bodybuilders and powerlifters, by guiding them to
build their successful careers. The plaintiff is having
chain under the name and style of Doranacharya Gym
having more than forty centers of GYM's. The
plaintiff personally trains his aspirants at the Gym's
situated at Hudson Lane, Dwarka and Narela
branches of the Dronacharya Gym.
3.3. The plaintiff has earned enormous goodwill and
reputation.
3.4. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that when the plaintiff visited his
Dronacharya GYM, situated at Hudson Lane, New
Delhi, some of his students/clients had shown on their
mobile phone that the defendant has deliberately and
with mala fide intention made certain patently false,
highly defamatory statements and insinuations,
including threats to the life of the plaintiff and his
family members on social media platform i.e.
WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM/KARANFITNESSINF
ORMATION , tagging the plaintiff, "Mr. Mukesh
Gahlot exposed!" "Mukesh Gehlot ne Nakli medal
liye hai" "Mukesh Gehlot koi maan saman nhi" "Aaj
ki Date mai Mukesh Gehlot ko kahi swagat nhi hai" "
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 3/10
-- 3 of 10 --
inko fool mala nhi dusri mala daal ke vedai dedi
jaye". In another social media post the defendant used
certain derogatory and defamatory statements i.e.
#Ganja Guru. "Bachco ko loot rahe hai" "Bache Jabh
Gym par atte hai inka shosan hota hai" "Asey Gande
Guru ko izzat na mille" "Inka charitar ghatiya hai"
"Chavi asey nhi sudregi abhi toh asli proof dale nhi,
lakin voh dalenge kabhi na kabhi" "Mukesh ke koi
bhi medal nhi hai aaj tak, sabh kuch fake hai" " Guruji
ke itne kaand hai, nakli lifter hai".
3.5. In another social media post the defendant used
certain derogatory and defamatory statements i.e.
#Ganja Guru "Gurji ke itne chite khol diye hai inki
izzat zero" "Audience hai jo dur bethi hai unko abhi
guru ji ka kaand nhi pata"
"yeh baadmash hai
character less hai, chutiya bana rhe hai, inhe follow
karna bandh kardo".
3.6. In another social media post the defendant used
certain derogatory and defamatory statements i.e.
"Ganja Guru ji ek kanwari ladki ko pata leta hai,
kuwari ladki Guru Ji se mobile leti hai sone ki chain
leti hai, aur Guruji ko aapne jaal mai fasa leti hai,
Guru ji ki Gand faat jati hai, lekin Ganja Gurju ji kisi
ka saga nhi hai aiyaash hai, Maa ki aankh Guru Ji ki
Nanga hai bhenchod, maha nanga" "Pure saboot hai
mamla garam hone do fir batunga ga ek se ek saboot,
inki maa ki".
3.7. In another social media post the defendant used
certain derogatory, defamatory and life threating
statements i.e.
"Character less hai koi izzat karne ki
zarrorat nhi hai" "Tere te badle tere te nhi teri aulad
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 4/10
-- 4 of 10 --
se lenge bhosdike Ganje" Open Chalange hai tumhari
gend mai haat dedenge" "randki ke bacho"
3.8. It is further the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff has
acquired immense goodwill and reputation in market
and the defendant has deliberately made such
statements to defame the plaintiff and also to affect
his credibility in the market. It is also submitted by
the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that imputing plaintiff
being shameless, characterless clearly signifies that
defendant is trying to show that plaintiff has set up a
false image of being renowned powerlifter which is
proving to be detrimental for his image.
4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
4.1. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pressed upon the
captioned application for passing of an Ex-Parte Ad-
Interim injunction Order on the ground of urgency as
the defendant continues to make defamatory
statement against the plaintiff on the Social Media
Platform like Instagram.
4.2. Heard, perused and considered.
4.3. The three parameters which are required to be
considered at the time of grant of injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 are:
a. Prima Facie case
b. Balance of Convenience &
c. Irreparable loss.
4.4. I have watched the impugned video which has been
filed in the form of a pen drive with the plaint. In the
said pen drive multiple videos are there wherein, the
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 5/10
-- 5 of 10 --
defendant is using terms which are per se defamatory
and abusive terms, such as “Characterless”, “Farzi
medal”, “Ganja Guruji exploits his students” and
“Ganja Guruji having an affair with a woman who
eventually loots him” have been uttered.
4.5. Without going into the merits of the case, prima facie
the videos uploaded by the defendant, on his
Instagram account, against the plaintiff are
defamatory, disparaging and abusive.
4.6. Defamation is an injury to a person’s reputation.
Every person has a right to maintain and preserve his
reputation un-assailed. The law of defamation
protects the reputation. A person’s reputation, which
is its precious possession, cannot always be measured
in terms of money. Specifically, the plaintiff is in the
business of Fitness and slight dent on the image can
lead to devastating financial and societal
consequences. Further, as adumbrated by the plaintiff
he is a powerlifter with international recognition and
he has an Instagram account with 2.4 million
followers which further leads to conclusion that
image of the plaintiff will take a serious dent.
4.7.
In the present case, the alleged defamatory video has
been uploaded on a social media platform, Instagram,
which can be accessed by any person in the world and
the impugned video can also be shared to several
thousands of persons all over the world by a few
clicks.
4.8. I have the profit of referring to the judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Physicswallah
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 6/10
-- 6 of 10 --
Limited Vs Nikhil Kumar Singh & Ors, CS(COMM)
70/2026, 23.01.2026, wherein it held as follows:
47.After hearing and on perusal of the
impugned videos, transcripts and
other documents as also the averments
in the plaint, I am of the view that
Plaintiff has made out a prima facie
case for grant of ad interim injunction.
Balance of convenience lies in favour
of the Plaintiff and against Defendant
No.1, inasmuch as if the reputation of
the Plaintiff is damaged, it will be an
irreparable harm and injury and an
irreversible loss, which cannot be
undone later or compensated by
money, however, if Defendant
succeeds in showing that the contents
of the videos/posts are true and not
disparaging and/or are not
defamatory or abusive, remedial
order can always be passed.
50. Grant of injunctive relief in cases
of online defamation, where the
content is found to be ex facie
defamatory, derogatory and malicious,
has received judicial recognition.
Law in the trademark regime grants
protection from infringement to a
registered proprietor of the mark and
also shields from erosion of goodwill
and reputation, which is a common
law right associated with the mark.
Disparagement through misleading
and/or abusive statements, constitutes
an unlawful interference in other
party’s commercial goodwill and is
actionable in law. Use of social media
to disseminate disparaging content
exacerbates the mischief, given the
speed, reach and permanence of
digital publications and has the
potential to cause immediate and
irreparable harm to trademark’s
reputation as also the goodwill of the
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 7/10
-- 7 of 10 --
effected party, which one builds over
years of hard work and investments.
51. In the instant case, the contents
of the impugned posts and videos
published by Defendant No.1 are
prima facie defamatory, abusive and
intended to denigrate Plaintiff’s
goodwill as also disparage its brand
and cannot be characterized as fair
competition or protected commercial
content. Courts have consistently held
that injunctions are warranted in
cases of trademark disparagement to
prevent erosion of goodwill and
consumer deception. This Court in
Vivek Thakur (supra) restrained the
Defendant vide order dated
03.12.2024 from using the infringing
mark SASTAWALLAH and from
disparagement. In Dhanya Rajendran
and Another v. Galaxy Zoom India
Ovt. Ltd. & Others, 2024 SCC Online
Del 4912, Court directed Defendants
No.1 to 3 to take down/remove/restrict
access/block the URLs of posts as well
as YouTube videos which contained
defamatory statements and abusive
content, vide order dated 15.07.2024.
In UpGrad Education Private Limited
v. Lavangiri Ansar Basha & Ors.,
CS(COMM) 742/2025, by order dated
25.07.2025, this Court restrained
Defendant No.1 therein from
uploading any social media post or
videos on social media platforms
using Plaintiff’s trademark or using
any explicit or abusive language
against the Plaintiff, its management
and its employees, taking serious note
of use of words like ‘scam’ and ‘fraud’
and observing that the intent of
Defendant No.1 was to disparage
Plaintiff’s mark.
4.9. Applying the principles as adumbrated above, the
plaintiff has been able to show that he has acquired
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 8/10
-- 8 of 10 --
goodwill in market by being a world-renowned
powerlifter and out of respect student address him as
Guruji. Further, the plaintiff has won medals in India
and outside India. The use of words like
“Characterless”, “Farzi medal”, “Ganja Guruji
exploits his students” and “Ganja Guruji having an
affair with a woman who eventually loots him” by
defendant is prima facie defamatory and
disparaging.
4.10. Thus, I am of the view that Plaintiff has made out a
prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction.
Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff
and against Defendant. The injury to the reputation,
being not measurable in terms of money, would be
irreparable.
4.11. Further, the reputation of individual is required to be
protected and at the same time these observations are
only on the basis of preliminary assessment of the
videos whereas it is correct that if Defendant
succeeds in showing that the contents of the
videos/posts are true and not disparaging and/or are
not defamatory or abusive, remedial order can always
be passed.
4.12. Today, the defendant has entered appearance through
his Ld. Counsel. Therefore, following directions are
passed as an Ad Interim injunction:
a. The defendant is directed to take
down/remove/delete videos, including the
Impugned Videos, targeting the plaintiff from his
Instagram Account i.e.
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 9/10
-- 9 of 10 --
WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM/KARANFITNESSI
NFORMATION
b. The defendant is directed not to post any video
relating to plaintiff till next date of hearing.
c. The defendant is restrained from using abusive
language against the plaintiff.
4.13. List the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 on
04.04.2026.
Announced in Open Court
On Dated 24.02.2026
(AKBAR SIDDIQUE)
DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/24.02.2026
CS DJ No. 863/25 MUKESH GAHLOT VS JAI KARAN Page No. 10/10
-- 10 of 10 --