A city court dismissed a real estate firm's petition to stop residents of Park Serene condominium from displaying banners criticising construction quality and infrastructure. BPTP, the developer, had filed a defamation suit, alleging harm to its reputation. Residents argued the banners served public interest by highlighting community issues. Judge Kimmi Singla's ruling on May 31 emphasised free speech rights, citing a Supreme Court precedent that injunctions in defamation cases should be rare. She noted the banners focused on facilities provided by BPTP, leaving defamation determination for trial. Residents welcomed the decision, citing ongoing concerns over construction quality and management practices, while the developer expressed intent to pursue legal recourse.
A city court dismissed a petition from a real estate firm seeking to restrain residents of a condominium from displaying banners protesting against construction quality and other infrastructure issues. BPTP, the developer responsible for the Park Serene project, had filed a defamation lawsuit against 25 society residents in early May, claiming that the protests were harming its reputation and causing financial losses. On May 22, the developer sought a pre-trial injunction to halt the protests.
Residents, who staged their protest in March, argued in court that the banners were in the public interest to highlight construction deficiencies in the gated community located in Sector 37D. They contended that the developer was using legal action to suppress their efforts to raise awareness about these concerns.
In her May 31 ruling dismissing the plea, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kimmi Singla underscored the importance of upholding freedom of speech and found no exceptional circumstances justifying an injunction. She cited a Supreme Court decision earlier this year in Bloomberg Television Production Services India vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises (2024), emphasising that courts should carefully consider the impact of injunctions on constitutionally protected rights like free speech.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgement, Judge Singla noted that interim injunctions in defamation cases should be granted sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. She observed that in this instance, the plaintiff, a builder with substantial economic influence, was attempting to use litigation to prevent the public from engaging with matters of significant public interest.
The court order highlighted that most of the banners displayed by Park Serene residents addressed facilities and infrastructure provided by BPTP. Judge Singla indicated that the question of whether these actions constituted defamation would be determined during trial. She concluded that granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff would hinder the defendants' right to express their grievances. Therefore, she dismissed the application, scheduling the defamation case to be heard next on November 26.
Residents of Park Serene welcomed the court's decision. The President of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of the 45-acre township, told the press that the developer frequently uses the society's club for their sales and investment meetings, bringing in external visitors. In spite of repeatedly voicing their concerns regarding the same, the builder is said to have ignored them leading to them holding a protest.
In response to the court's decision, a spokesperson for the developer stated that the company intends to pursue its legal options to safeguard its rights.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
