The Delhi High Court has stayed the trial court verdict that ordered Hindustan Times and its former reporter Neelesh Misra to pay Rs 40 lakh as damages to a businessman over an allegedly defamatory news article.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order on Thursday on a petition filed by Hindustan Times and Mishra against the judgment passed by the District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, on June 6, 2025.
The High Court further issued notice to businessman Arun Kumar Gupta.
The matter pertained to an article titled ‘Get Smart, Email with Care,’ authored by Mishra and published by Hindustan Times (HT) in 2007. The petitioners contended that the purpose of the article was to make the public aware about the misuse of electronic communications, such as email.
The article, however, also mentioned an allegation about a former employee of a company called Integrix, claiming that he was sacked from the company over alleged ‘financial irregularities’.
Gupta sued the newspaper and Mishra over this aspect of the article, arguing that such a reference to him was defamatory. Gupta had joined Integrix as Director in 2000 and resigned in July 2005 to start his own company. In March and April 2006, Integrix filed two suits over a defamatory email and hacking of its website. Following the orders of the Delhi High Court, it was later revealed that the IP address linked to the email and hacking could be traced to Gupta.
In January 2007, Hindustan Times published the news report written by Misra. Without naming Gupta, it stated that he had been sacked for financial irregularities.
Gupta sued the paper, Misra, Integrix, its directors and even its lawyer for defamation. He later settled the case with all, except Hindustan Times and Misra.
Both HT and Mishra said that the article was written on the basis of credible information received from sources and corroborated by various documents, including copies of suits filed by Integrix against Gupta.
On June 6, Judge Prabh Deep Kaur of the Saket District Court observed that the newspaper and Misra neither disclosed the exact source of information, nor they filed any document to support their claim that Gupta was sacked for alleged financial irregularities.
Over the argument that Gupta was not named in the article, the trial court said all the witnesses examined by him admitted that they were aware about the court cases and they could co-relate the report to him.
The Judge noted that the moment witnesses questioned Gupta on the basis of averments made in the article, damage was caused to his reputation.
The Saket Court said both the newspaper and Mishra were liable for defamation. It ordered them to pay Rs 40 lakh as damages to Gupta. While HT was directed to pay 3/4th of the amount, Misra was ordered to pay the rest of the compensation.
The judge further directed the newspaper to publish an apology within 60 days.
The High Court stayed this verdict and listed the matter for further hearing on December 19.