- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has allowed a case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan to be transferred from a court in Rohtak, Haryana, to a court in Delhi.The court allowed a transfer petition filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan who had sought transfer of a criminal defamation case filed against him by IndiaBulls Venture Capital Management Company Ltd in Rohtak, Haryana, to...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has allowed a case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan to be transferred from a court in Rohtak, Haryana, to a court in Delhi.
The court allowed a transfer petition filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan who had sought transfer of a criminal defamation case filed against him by IndiaBulls Venture Capital Management Company Ltd in Rohtak, Haryana, to Delhi.
Earlier, Indiabulls had filed a criminal defamation case against Bhushan before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak, Haryana, for publishing allegedly defamatory content against it on social media, and thus causing substantial damage to its reputation.
In his transfer petition, Bhushan had claimed that the defamation case against him was filed only as “vindictive action” against him, in order to silence him from highlighting the illegalities committed by Indiabulls.
Bhushan contended that the criminal proceedings were initiated only to harass him since he is the signing authority and Secretary of Citizens Whistle Blowers’ Forum which had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Delhi High Court, seeking a probe into Indiabull’s illegalities.
Bhushan submitted that he is a practicing advocate in Delhi and traveling to Haryana to attend hearings would cause him “undue difficulty”, a fact which he alleged, Indiabulls used as leverage to silence him, by filing the case in Rohtak, Haryana.
He said that while making allegedly defamatory statements against Indiabulls, he had relied on company documents, balance sheets and Registrar of Company records available in public domain.
He also pointed out that Indiabulls should rather have no trouble if the case is transferred to Delhi, since it has its registered offices in that city.