The Bombay Civil Court has denied Salman Khan's plea seeking interim relief against his Panvel farmhouse neighbour. The actor had filed a defamation suit against Ketan Akkad (the neighbour), YouTuber Sandeep Phogat, Paras Bhatt, Ujjwal Narain, and others, regarding allegedly defamatory content on social media.
Additional sessions judge Anil H Laddhad rejected the notice of motion filed by the actor which sough an injunction against Kakkad and others which would restrain them from making or posting any derogatory content about the actor or the Panvel farmhouse, on social media.
Salman had claimed that Kakkad had made degrading statement about him and his family in a Facebook live which was posted on the YouTube channel 'Phogat Film'.
The actor, in his plea, called all the allegations levelled against him by Kakkad, baseless and unsubstantiated. The plea added that Kakkad is 'agitated' and is trying to defame the actor and get media publicity by levelling false accusations.
Kakkad's counsel consisting of advocate Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap Singh, argued that the defamation suit has been filed to pressurise Kakkad to give up his land.
Kakkad claimed that he had purchased a plot of 2.5 acres next to Khan's farmhouse 'Arpita Farms' in 1996. Khan claimed that the forest department cancelled Kakkad's allotment but the latter is now blaming him and his family.
Khan's notice of motion alleged that Kakkad's statements were causing 'grave and irreparable harm' to Khan and his family members including a loss of goodwill.
Kakkad's advocates claimed that Kakkad hasn't been able to access his lands since 2014, allegedly due to Khan and his family. Kakkad returned from the USA to settle in India in 2014.
Kakkad's counsel argued that statements made by Kakkad were in public interest for the protection of the environment which is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Kakkad accused the actor of carrying out illegal construction on the Arpita Farms.
The Court was told that Kakkad wasn't allowed access to any sort of electricity by the authorities of the area.
His lawyers argued, "He has approached all the departments for his grievances like the Forest Department, etc. He has also filed complaints and FIRs and due inquiry is instituted. The cases are also pending before the respective courts."
Kakkad's counsel also argued that it was Kakkad's fundamental duty under Article 51 (A)(g) to protect the environment.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)