Additional Sessions Judge Anil Laddad dismissed Khan’s plea seeking an interim order restraining Kakkar from making any further remarks against him or his family members in relation to Khan’s farmhouse in Panvel in neighboring Raigad district. was done.
The detailed order became available on Wednesday.
Kakkar, a non-resident Indian, owns a plot of land on a hill next to Khan’s farmhouse.
Khan’s defamation suit alleges that Kakkar made derogatory remarks against the actor in an interview on a YouTube channel.
Khan’s lawyer Pradeep Gandhi argued that Kakkar made false, defamatory and defamatory allegations in the video, post and tweet.
The lawyer told the court that Kakkar had tried to buy a plot next to Khan’s farmhouse, but the authorities canceled the transaction on the grounds that it was illegal.
Gandhi said Kakkar started making false allegations that the transaction was canceled at the behest of Khan and his family.
Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap, appearing for Kakkar, opposed the relief sought by Khan, arguing that the statements revolved around facts about Khan’s assets and could not amount to defamation.
The lawyers claimed that Kakkar had bought his land in 1996. He retired in 2014 and wanted to live there, but could not reach his land because of Salman Khan and his family.
The judge, after examining the tweets and videos on record, observed that Khan did not explain how the indications contained in the tweets pertained to him.
The court said there is “documentary evidence” to substantiate the allegation of Khan preventing Kakkar from coming to his land.
The judge said that with regard to the allegations of encroachment by Salman and violation of the Forest Act and the Matheran Eco-Sensitive Notification, Kakkar took on record the applications made to the Forest Department and the Collector along with the show cause notices issued by the Forest Department. kept, said the judge.
“The respondent (Kakkar) argued that he is a whistle-blower for the illegal acts committed by the plaintiff (Khan) and made the allegations in public interest by taking due diligence by producing documentary material in support of the same.” noted.
“Therefore, at the preliminary stage …. as the plaintiff failed to explain, how it relates to, and the defendant made a plea of justification, which is prima facie supported by documentary evidence … I to grant I am not inclined to injunct the plaintiff,” the court ruled.