Delhi HC asks MS Dhoni’s former business partners to list specific allegations against media houses regarding defamation

Delhi-High-Court-and-MS-Dhoni. (Photo Source: Twitter)

Former India skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni has been sued for defamation by his ex-business partners, Mihir Diwakar and his wife Saumya Das. The duo has filed a case against Dhoni in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and damages. The suit was filed to direct the 42-year-old from publishing any defamatory and malicious statements against them in the media.

Meanwhile, Dhoni’s counsel submitted before the court that the defamation suit against the cricketer was not maintainable. Following which, the single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh refused to pass any interim order against the Chennai Super Kings skipper and several media houses and social media platforms to injunct them from posting or publishing any alleged false defamatory content against the plaintiffs. The case has also been adjourned to April 3, 2024.

Singh, on Monday also directed Diwakar and Das to specify the allegations against media houses that allegedly defamed them. The court asked the complainants to explain how the news about the cheating complaint filed by Dhoni defamed them. Advocate Siddhant Kumar, representing the news agency ANI, argued that the media house published factual reports stating that a complaint had been filed by Dhoni against Diwakar and Das. The suit has been filed against the cricketer, as well as Facebook parent company Meta, X (formerly Twitter), Google, YouTube, and 30 media houses and web portals.

Notably, Dhoni accused the duo of duping him of close to Rs 16 crore by not honouring a contract to establish cricket academies in 2017. Since then, the duo has denied fraud allegations. Diwakar and Saumya moved the High Court seeking directions to restrain Dhoni and others from making defamatory allegations against them regarding an alleged breach of contract. They claimed that the allegations made against them by Dhoni are without any basis, ‘wild, false, baseless, vindictive, malicious, and unfounded.’

On the other hand, representing the couple, senior advocate Satvik Verma argued that the media houses have already labelled them guilty, which is not justifiable as the case is still on.