MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has provided interim relief to SD Corporation Pvt Ltd, a Mumbai-based real estate developer, in a defamation lawsuit. The court has ordered that defamatory posts, videos, and messages targeting the company and its MHADA redevelopment project must not be disseminated until the next hearing.
Justice Abhay Ahuja issued this direction on July 27 while considering an interim application from SD Corporation against Devang Dave and others. The court noted that the company demonstrated a prima facie case warranting this temporary relief.
According to the lawsuit, SD Corporation— a joint venture of the Shapoorji Pallonji Group and the Dilip Thacker Group—has accused the defendants of spreading false and malicious information on various social media platforms regarding its integrated redevelopment initiative at Samta Nagar, Kandivali (East). The company alleges the posts falsely accuse it and MHADA of misconduct and incite the public to boycott the Sarova project, thereby harming its reputation and business interests.
The redevelopment project spans a 55-acre MHADA layout with 166 buildings, accommodating around 2,894 allottees. The developer pointed out that 72 of the 74 housing societies involved are members of the Samta Nagar Cooperative Housing Societies Union Ltd, which has secured a no-objection certificate from MHADA for the project. Despite 13 societies contesting the plan in the High Court, the company argued that no temporary relief had been provided in those cases.
Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, representing SD Corporation, claimed that despite a cease-and-desist notice sent on May 13, 2026, the defendants continued to disseminate the defamatory content. The company is also seeking damages and a permanent injunction against the continuation of such publications.
Defendant Devang Dave’s counsel countered the claims, asserting that truth serves as a complete defense in defamation cases and argued that the statements express the grievances of 11 housing societies. However, when questioned by the court, the defense conceded that Dave was not a member, purchaser, or prospective buyer in the redevelopment project.
The court found that terms like “corrupt,” “fraud,” and “scam” utilized in the posts appeared to be disparaging and could potentially disrupt the plaintiff’s business operations and contracts. Consequently, the court ordered interim protection.
The High Court instructed the defendants and all relevant hosts—regardless of their participation in the litigation—not to circulate the disputed statements, posts, and videos identified in the lawsuit until the next hearing. Additionally, the court imposed ad-interim relief, barring the further publication of similar defamatory material while requiring the parties to finalize their pleadings. The case is scheduled for further hearing on August 31, 2026.
