Delhi HC issues summons in Sameer Wankhede's defamation suit against Red Chillies Entertainment, Netflix over 'Bads of Bollywood'

Aryan Khan received an update in Sameer Wankhede's defamation case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued summons to Red Chillies Entertainment Private Limited and others in a civil defamation suit filed by former Mumbai zonal director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sameer Wankhede.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued a summons (notice) on the plea of Sameer Wankhede against Red Chillies Entertainment and others.

The High Court has asked Red Chillies Entertainment and others to file a reply within 7 days. The petition has been asked to file a rejoinder within 3 days thereafter.

The court has asked the petitioner to supply a copy of the petition to all defendants. The matter has been listed on October 30 for a hearing.

The High Court refused to grant any instant relief to the petitioner and asked them to come after 10 days.

Earlier, on September 26, the High Court heard the defamation suit filed by IRS officer and former NCB Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede against Netflix, Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (owned by actor Shah Rukh Khan and Gauri Khan), and others over the series 'Ba***ds of Bollywood'

The matter came up before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Wankhede, while Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar appeared for some of the defendants.

During the previous hearing, the High Court had asked Wankhede’s counsel about the cause of action for filing the suit in Delhi.

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi had argued that since the series was meant for audiences across cities, including Delhi, and memes targeting Wankhede were also circulating in the Capital, jurisdiction was made out.

Also Read: Watch: Sameer Wankhede’s alleged scene in The Bads of Bollywood: Know about the drug-related controversial scene, case, and more

The Court, however, had expressed reservations. “Your plaint is not maintainable. I am rejecting your plaint. Had your case been that you were defamed at various places, including Delhi, and that maximum damage occurred here, we would have still considered it,” Justice Kaurav had observed.

Citing Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Court pointed out that the plaint had not properly set out how the civil suit would lie in Delhi, particularly in paragraphs 37 and 38. On Sethi’s request for time to amend the plaint, the judge had clarified: “I am not giving any date. The Registry will give the date once the application is listed.”