Delhi HC grants interim relief to Terra Invest founders Ankiti Bose, Krishan Rattan in separate publication suits

The latest order, dated September 14, 2026, was passed by Justice Sachin Datta in Krishan Rattan v. Mr Nitin Naresh & Ors., CS(OS) 815/2026. It follows an order dated August 24, 2026, passed by Justice Subramonium Prasad in Boses separate suit, CS(OS) 756/2026.

The two orders concern separate proceedings instituted by Bose and Rattan against Nitin Naresh and other defendants over publications concerning them.

In Rattans case, the High Court directed that defendants 1 to 5 be restrained from publishing any further articles containing any defamatory imputations against the plaintiff.

The court recorded Rattans submissions concerning the impugned publications and the allegations made against him. His counsel relied upon an English consent order dated August 5, 2026, passed in proceedings concerning the Voltaire Group.

Rattans case before the High Court was that the proceedings against him had been discontinued and that there was no adverse finding of fraud, dishonesty or wrongdoing against him. He also raised a grievance regarding publications which, according to his case, contained imputations concerning his continued involvement in those proceedings despite the subsequent development.

After considering the submissions, the High Court granted interim protection to Rattan and restrained defendants 1 to 5 from publishing any further articles containing defamatory imputations against him.

The court clarified that the direction was being passed at the interim stage after considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience. It also expressly clarified that the defendants were not precluded from continuing their fact-finding exercise concerning the allegations.

In the separate suit filed by Ankiti Uday Bose, Justice Subramonium Prasad, by order dated August 24, 2026, considered the publications relied upon by the plaintiff.

The court observed that the identified articles, which commented on Boses exercise of legal rights, had the effect of deliberately painting the Plaintiffs image in a bad light and might also result in hampering court proceedings.

The High Court consequently restrained defendants 1 to 5 from disseminating the identified articles through their LinkedIn or any other social-media accounts. It further restrained them from publishing any further articles which would have the effect of restraining Bose from exercising her legal right.

The order also records that Bose had earlier instituted proceedings before the District Court at South-West, Dwarka. The District Court, by an order dated June 8, 2026, had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction directing removal of the impugned article and restraining further defamatory publications.

The High Courts order records Boses case that, despite the earlier order, further publications were made in July and August 2026 and that the continued publication, republication, indexing and dissemination had caused injury to her reputation, goodwill, professional standing and commercial credibility.

The two orders relate to separate suits filed individually by Bose and Rattan against Nitin Naresh and other defendants. While Rattans September order contains a restraint against further articles containing defamatory imputations against him, Boses August order contains directions concerning dissemination of specified articles and further publications affecting her exercise of legal rights.

Both sets of directions are interim in nature, and the respective suits are continuing. In Boses matter, the defendants were directed to file their replies to the interim injunction application within four weeks of receipt of notice, with the plaintiff permitted to file a rejoinder thereafter. The matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar on October 7, 2026. (ANI)