High Court · 2025

A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.11.2025CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABALA. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 202563 Moons Technologies LimitedRepresented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.D.John Dheepak, ... Applicant/ Plaintiff[common in both applications]VsSlowform Holdings Limited Represented by its Director Ashish Kumar Mishra, and 6 Others ...Respondents / Defendants[common in both applications]PRAYER in A. No.1019 of 2025: This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule VIII of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 / defendants 1 to 7 including their men, agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through them from making any further Page No.1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory statements in any form whatsoever including but not limited to an article, video, tweet, post or otherwise, concerning the Plaintiff and its management in any manner whatsoeer pending disposal of the Suit.PRAYER in A. No.1020 of 2025: This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule VIII of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code praying to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 / defendants 1 to 7 including their men, agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through them from republishing the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 published in the link namely https:// themorningcontext.com / internet / jignesh-shah-brings-a-half-baked-cybersecurity-product-to-market on theirs news portal or any other social media platform or any other social media platform or any other form of media in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the Suit.In both applications:Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025For Applicant:Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Counselfor M/s. Vaibhav R VenkateshCOMMON ORDERThe applicant / Plaintiff has filed the main Suit claiming damages for defamatory publications made by the respondents / defendants. The prayers in the main Suit are (i) to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.1,00,10,000/- as compensation to the Plaintiff, (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants including their men, agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through them from making any further unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory statements in any form whatsoever including but not limited to an article, video, tweet, post or otherwise, concerning the Plaintiff and its management or repeating and republishing the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 and (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 published by the defendants in the link namely Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025https://themorningcontext.com/internet/jignesh-shah-brings-a-half-baked-cybersecurity-product-to-market; from its news portal and other social media platforms and (iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender and publish an unconditional apology to the Plaintiff in prominent print media, digital media and social media and for costs.2. In the main Suit, the Plaintif has filed two applications, one is for granting ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 / defendants 1 to 7 including their men, agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through them from republishing the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 published in the link namely https:// themorningcontext.com / internet / jignesh-shah-brings-a-half-baked-cybersecurity-product-to-market on theirs news portal or any other social media platform or any other social media platform or any other form of media in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the Suit and another original application is for granting ad interim Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 / defendants 1 to 7 including their men, agents, servants or anyone claiming under or through them from making any further unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory statements in any form whatsoever including but not limited to an article, video, tweet, post or otherwise, concerning the Plaintiff and its management in any manner whatsoeer pending disposal of the Suit.3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant / Plaintiff would submit that the Plaintiff has filed the above main Suit for the relieves of damages, mandatory injunction to remove the defamatory contents and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from publishing the defamatory contents and also to remove the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 published by the defendants and also to seek apology. In fact, the Plaintiff company is a Public Limited Listed company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having substantial goodwill and reputation with around Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 202548,000 stockholders and approximately 350+ employees across the nation. The Plaintiff company authorized one Mr. John C. Deepak through an authorization letter dated 27.09.2023. The Plaintiff company engaged in providing technology solutions for the financial markets infrastructure. One Mr. Jignesh Shah is the founder of the Plaintiff company, a global leader in creating and operating technology-centric financial exchanges for stocks, commodities, currencies and bonds, among other asset classes. 3.1. While so, the defendants had published defamatory article with sole intention of maligning the image of Mr. Jignesh Shah, who is the former Chairman and Managing Director of the Plaintiff company. The defendants had maliciously added a photograph of Mr. Jignesh Shah with the impugned article without ascertaining the true facts and solely with the motive to tenaciously link Mr. Jignesh Shah with the CYBX application. 63SATS is a group company of the applicant / Plaintiff company having a separate Board Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025of Directors and management, and is a separate legal entity. Mr. Jignesh Shah is not a Director of the applicant company and has no role in its day-to-day management or decision-making. He resigned from the Board of the applicant / Plaintiff company in November 2014. Despite the said facts, the defendants went on to publish that "63SATS was a fully-owned subsidiary of Jignesh Shah-owned 63 Moons Technologies". Mr. Shah is not associated with the day-to-day affairs of the applicant / Plaintiff company and does not own the applicant / Plaintiff company as wrongly published in the impugned article, and is only a shareholder. In August 2025, 63SATS introduced a cutting-edge mobile cybersecurity application called CYBX, designed for end users to protect against various modern cyber threats. On 9th September 2025, in the online platform of the Morning Context, the 7th defendant had authored an article titled 'Jignesh Shah brings a half-baked cybersecurity product to market'. The impugned article would indicate that the article has been written in a pre-determined manner without any regard for the ethics of Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025fair and responsible journalistic reporting. The said article is nothing but a libelous story that has been published with the sole intention of harming the reputation of the applicant / Plaintiff company. Therefore, he filed the Suit. 3.2. Further the learned Senior counsel would submit that already the Plaintiff's subsidiary namely 63SATS Cybertech Limited had filed a Suit against the 1st respondent and others before the District Judge, Delhi and the District Court had passed an interim order in respect of the other companies. Therefore, prayed to grant ad-interim injunction as against the respondents.4. This Court heard the applicant's side and perused the materials available on record.5. On a perusal of the records, it is observed that the 7th respondent published an article by showing the picture of ex-Director of the applicant / Plaintiff company Mr. Jignesh Shah and other Directors and made defamatory Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025comments and made comments in respect of Mr. Jignesh Shah that he owned 63 Moons Technologies. The headlnotes shows that Mr. Jignesh Shah brings a half-baked cybersecurity product to market and also made some allegations in respect of 63 Moons Technologies Limited / Plaintiff company. The article has been published in the online platform of the Morning Context and the 7th defendant authored the said article. 6. According to the applicant, there are defamatory contents. Already the 63SATS Cybertech Limited has filed the Suit in C.S. No.1050/2025 and got an interim order from the District Court, Delhi on 23.09.2025. Now these applications have filed for interim injunction from making any further unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory statements and to grant ad-interim injunction, to restrain from republishing the defamatory article dated 09.09.2025 published in the link namely https:// themorningcontext.com / internet / jignesh-shah-brings-a-half-baked-cybersecurity-product-to-market on their 41news portal or any other social media platform or any other social Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025media platform. The title itself is named as 'Mr. Jignesh Shah brings a half-baked cybersecurity product to market'. 7. On a perusal of the above said article, it reveals that some defamatory contents are available as against the applicant. Prima facie case is made out and balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant and if interim injunction is not granted, the applicant will be put to irreparable loss and therefore, it is appropriate to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed for. 8. Accordingly, an ad-interim injunction is granted till the date of next hearing.(i) Issue notice to the respondents returnable by 26.11.2025.(ii) Private Notice is also permitted.(iii) Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code has to be complied with.Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 20259. Post the matter on 26.11.2025.03.11.2025mjsNote: Issue copy on 04.11.2025.P.DHANABAL.,JmjsPage No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 2025A. Nos.1019 and 1020 of 2025inC.S. No.252 of 202503.11.2025Page No.12 of 12