Work

Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Others, Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024

[represented the Appellant before the Supreme Court in a matter concerning portrayal of persons with disabilities in an offensive manner in a movie titled “Aankh Micholi” produced by the Respondent. It was an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s judgment titled Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Others, W.P.(C) 522/2024, where, the Petition had originally been preferred, and dismissed (Citation:2024 SCC OnLine Del 337). The Supreme Court, however, in this ‘pathbreaking’ judgment, framed landmark guidelines on portrayal of persons with disabilities in audio-visual media, holding that they must not be lampooned. This judgment reaffirms India’s commitment to equality and inclusivity, fostering a just and respectful society] [Case Report] [Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1639 / 2024 INSC 465].

Jaskaran Singh Chawla v. Union of India and Others, WP (CRL.) 246 of 2022

[represented the Petitioner before the Supreme Court in a plea seeking investigation into the affairs of a multi-billion-dollar firm known as M/s Amtek Auto Limited, since the firm had laundered and siphoned off more than INR 27,000 crores outside of India. The Petition was filed based on critical information supplied to the Petitioner by a journalist-whistleblower which revealed the apparent siphoning of funds. The Supreme Court, while looking into the allegations and contentions in the Petition, in a rare incidence, ordered an investigation into the affairs of the firm – through Enforcement Directorate, India’s AML investigating agency] [Case Report] [Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 255].

Dr. Shelly Batra and Another v. M/s Operation ASHA & Others, CS(OS) 153 of 2020

[represented the Plaintiffs before the Delhi High Court in a plea seeking leave to sue under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the Defendant NGO M/s Operation ASHA, which functioned to provide free tuberculosis medicines to underprivileged communities. The Suit was instituted on the ground that the Plaintiffs, the office bearers of the organization, had detected widespread financial malfeasance in the Defendant NGO’s account, at the behest of the other Defendants, also office bearers of the organization. The Court held, that the NGO in question, though registered as a ‘society’, exhibited the legal characteristics of a ‘public charitable trust’ and would thus be amenable to the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 92 of the CPC, 1908] [Case Report] [Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3166 / 2024:DHC:3502].

Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Others, CS(OS) 667/2023

[represented the Defendant No. 2, Jai Anant Dehadrai, in a defamation Suit, filed by Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament (MP), against MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, seeking to restrain them from making alleged defamatory statements against her. This Suit was filed in response to the allegations made by the Defendant No. 2 in a statutory complaint, that, Mahua Moitra accepted bribes from a businessman in exchange for her Parliamentary login credentials, and the said businessman in turn posted questions of his liking on her behalf on the Parliament’s digital portal, which were to be answered on the floor of the House. The Court, while refusing to restrain the Defendants, held that there was ‘truth’ in the allegations and thus the same cannot be termed to be ‘defamatory’] [Case Report] [Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1545 / 2024:DHC:1771].

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal and Others, Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006

[represented one of the Intervenors in a plea before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) could not have 50% reservation for minorities, since it was not a minority institution. The plea before the Supreme Court seeks to determine whether AMU will be able to retain its status as a minority institution (and thus 50% reservation) despite being aided by the State] [Case Report] [Citation: judgment yet to be pronounced].

Subramaniam Swamy v. Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd & Another, SLP(C) No. 16477-16478/2023

[represented the Respondent Companies before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the Appellant, a senior Indian politician, seeking an anti-suit injunction, challenging a judgment of the Madras High Court, which had earlier allowed one of the Respondent Companies to institute a suit for defamation against the Appellant in Singapore] [Case Report].

Gautam Gambhir v. Punjab Kesari and Others

[represented the Plaintiff, Gautam Gambhir, the former Indian Cricket Team Captain, in a defamation suit against one of India’s largest newspapers, Punjab Kesari. The Suit was instituted against the newspaper alleging that the Plaintiff suffered damage to his reputation on account of the newspaper publishing a series of malicious and false stories targeting the Plaintiff] [Case Report].

Ajay Durlabh v. State of NCT of Delhi, WP (CRL.) 1137/2024

[represented a convicted inmate in a Petition before the Delhi High Court, where the issue was one of non-verification of the address of the convict by his home State, prompting the jail authorities to reject his application for furlough. The Petition before the High Court challenged this decision on the basis of Rule 1234 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which mandates that non-receipt of the verification report ought not to be a ground to reject the furlough application of a convict].

Salim @ Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (CRL.) 8246/2023

[represented the Appellant before the Supreme Court in a matter concerning suspension of sentence under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and secured orders from the Court which directed the Petitioner to be released on bail/suspension of sentence on grounds of health].

Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India (P) Ltd., WP(C) 522/2024

[represented the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court in a public-interest Petition concerning portrayal of persons with disabilities in a derogatory and offensive manner in a movie titled “Aankh Micholi” produced by the Respondent] [Case Report] [Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 337 / 2024:DHC:344-DB].

Jai Anant Dehadrai and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another

[represented the Petitioners in the plea challenging the Delhi government’s rule to limit the frequency of meetings of lawyers and family members with undertrial inmates] [Case Report].

Daniel George v. Government of NCT of Delhi, WP 7083/2018 and Delhi Parents Association v. Government of NCT of Delhi, WP(C) 2105 of 2020

[represented the Petitioners in the pleas challenging the Delhi government’s decision to install CCTV cameras in government school classrooms on grounds of violation of the right to privacy].

SKS Enterprises v. Madhya Bharat Papers Limited, CP(IB) 63//2021

[represented one of India’s largest waste-paper suppliers, the Operational Creditor, in an application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings against one of the largest paper manufacturers of Eastern India, the Corporate Debtors, where the debt was estimated to be approximately INR 8 crores].