Delhi Court Dismisses Premature Appeal in Sandesara Takedown Order Case

A Delhi district court has refused to hear an appeal against a takedown order related to Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara, labeling the appeal as premature. The court emphasized the necessity of pursuing remedies in the trial court and highlighted adherence to procedural requirements for injunction orders under the CPC.

A Delhi district court has refused to entertain an appeal challenging an ex-parte takedown order against businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara, citing the appeal as premature. District Judge Vinod Kumar Meena at Tis Hazari Courts dismissed the appeal from Moneywise Media LLP, stressing adherence to legal procedures that require primary pursuit of remedies at the trial court level.

The court underscored the inappropriateness of appellate involvement while provisions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are active and not expired. Representing Sandesara, Advocates Tanmay Mehta and Hemant Shah argued against the appeal, calling it untimely since it was lodged before the 30-day decision period for the injunction application lapsed. Their stance was supported by the trial court’s adherence to scheduled hearings, which fulfilled Order 39 Rule 3A CPC requirements.

Judge Meena emphasized the Supreme Court’s precedence in Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan that allows appellate disruption only when trial courts delay past 30 days, a scenario absent here. The challenged injunction, believed detailed and reasoned, was distinguished from other defective instances like Bloomberg Television cases. This legal proceeding follows an ex-parte injunction demanding content takedown by Google LLC and Meta regarding alleged links to the Sterling Biotech fraud case.