look news india
AITMC MP Saket Gokhale will have to pay Rs 50 lakh in a defamation case against former UN Assistant Secretary-General Lakshmi Puri. Delhi High Court has given this direction.
AITMC MP Saket Gokhale has got a big setback from the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court has directed AITMC MP Saket Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh as compensation to Lakshmi Puri in the defamation case. The Delhi High Court on Monday directed AITMC MP Saket Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh as damages in a defamation case against former UN Assistant Secretary-General Lakshmi Puri. The court also asked Gokhale to apologize to the Times of India and his Twitter handle.
What did the court say?
The apology on the Twitter handle should last for six months, the court said. The defamation suit is against plaintiff Laxmi Puri, wherein the defendant Saket Gokhale had published derogatory tweets or posts regarding the integrity of the plaintiff. The court, pronouncing the verdict today, said, 'The defamatory statements of Saket Gokhale have caused irreparable damage to Laxmi Puri and hence Saket Gokhale is directed to apologise to her.'
The court said, 'Gokhale is prevented from publishing any further defamatory material against Lakshmi and is awarded a compensation of Rs 50 lakh for damaging Lakshmi's reputation.' A bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled on Monday that no monetary award can actually compensate for the loss of reputation, however, in all cases, Saket Gokhale is entitled to compensation. The plaintiff has been directed to pay this amount within 8 weeks.
What is the whole matter?
A civil suit was filed by Karanjawala & Co on behalf of Lakshmi Puri. In fact, Gokhale had made false and defamatory allegations against Lakshmi Puri and her husband that they had bought a house in Geneva, Switzerland with black money. The petition states that the respondent Gokhale in one of his tweets mentioned Swiss bank accounts and foreign black money and tagged the Union Finance Minister, requesting to order a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate against the plaintiff and her husband.
