New Delhi [India], November 1 : Moneywise Media LLP, publisher of financial news portal Moneylife, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging an interim order passed by a district court in a defamation suit filed by Indiabulls Nests Ltd and Sameer Gehlaut.
The appeal challenges the October 24 order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts in a suit concerning several publications and online content. Moneywise has challenged the order insofar as it applies to the publisher.
According to the appeal, Moneywise was arrayed as one of the defendants in the suit in connection with a report published by Moneylife on May 8, 2025 concerning proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Moneywise has stated that its report, titled “SC Asks ED, RBI To Submit Status Report on Indiabulls Investigation”, covered a hearing before the Supreme Court and reported the directions issued during the proceedings. According to the appeal, the report attributed the allegations to the proceedings and also carried the company’s denial.
The publisher has challenged the interim directions insofar as they concern Moneywise. According to its appeal, the district court’s order included directions restraining the defendants from publishing allegedly false, defamatory or misleading content concerning the plaintiffs, besides directions relating to the deletion and de-indexing of certain online links.
The appeal states that the suit was filed against multiple defendants, including publishers, journalists, website operators and intermediaries, in relation to several publications and online material.
Moneywise has contended in its appeal that the order was passed without notice to it or an opportunity of hearing. It has also raised objections to the scope of the interim directions and sought protection in relation to its report and future reporting of judicial and official proceedings.
The publisher has sought a stay on the operation of the October 24 order insofar as it concerns Moneywise. In the alternative, it has sought interim protection against directions requiring the removal or de-indexing of its May 2025 report and against restrictions on reporting judicial or official proceedings concerning the plaintiffs.
It has also sought protection against any coercive action being taken against it on the basis of the interim order while its appeal remains pending before the High Court.