Bollywood actor Salman Khan has sued his 'neighbour' Ketan Kakkad for alleged defamation, and the Mumbai City Civil Court on Friday refused to grant the actor an interim restraining order. According to the news agency PTI, Ketan Kakkad owns a plot in Panvel near Salman Khan's farmhouse. The actor filed a lawsuit alleging that Ketan defamed Salman Khan in an interview with a YouTube channel. According to the news agency, Judge Anil H Laddhad directed Kakkad to file his reply and scheduled a hearing for January 21.
DSK Legal, which represents Khan, sought an interim injunction (order) prohibiting Kakkad from making any further defamatory statements while the case was pending. However, Kakkad's lawyers, Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap, objected to the prayer, claiming that they only received the case papers on Thursday evening and were unable to go through the entire suit.
Kakkad's lawyers also stated that if Salman Khan waited a month to file the suit, then their client Kakkad should be given the same amount of time to respond.
Apart from Kakkad, two other people participated in the show, according to Salman Khan's complaint. They've also been identified as respondents. Salman wants the defamatory content removed from the internet, so he has made social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and search engine Google parties to the suit. The actor also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Kakkad from posting or publishing any defamatory content about him or the farmhouse.
According to a Bar and Bench report, Salman Khan's plea stated that Kakkad attempted to purchase a plot of land next to Khan's Panvel farmhouse, but the transaction was cancelled by authorities because it was deemed illegal. Since then, Kakkad has made false and baseless claims that the transaction was cancelled due to Salman Khan. According to Salman's lawyers, the "false, disparaging, and defamatory" allegations in videos, posts, and tweets are causing harm and loss to the actor, his family members, and his business ventures.
“Comments made by Defendants travel well beyond the scope of fair comment” according to the suit
