Defamation: Lakshmi Puri Refuses Saket Gokhale's Settlement Offer Over Payment Of Damages Before Delhi High Court

Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, on Wednesday turned down before the Delhi High Court a settlement offer made by Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale of not paying Rs. 50 lakh damages to her in the defamation suit against him, citing shortage of funds.

Gokhale's lawyer told Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav that a “liberal approach” be taken in the matter and said:

“Ultimately the cost he will have to pay if the order is not set aside is Rs. 50 lakh in decree as well as tendering the apology. To conclude, as I offered to my learned friend also, that he does not have the funds today. So if there is a possibility of settlement without any payment of any amount…”

However, the offer was refused by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh who represented Puri.

The Court was hearing Gokhale's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 seeking recall of the ex parte order passed by a coordinate bench on July 01 last year asking him to put an apology on social media and to pay Rs. 50 lakh damages to Lakshmi Puri.

Gokhale has also filed an application for condonation of delay in seeking his relief. The defamation suit was filed in 2021.

During the hearing today, Gokhale's counsel gave reasons for TMC leader's non appearance in the suit before the coordinate bench which passed the ruling.

The counsel said that Gokhale's previous counsel was appearing in the matter till March 2022 but later stopped appearing. He said that Gokhale did not receive any communication by the earlier counsel, either on WhatsApp or email.

It was also submitted that Gokhale was facing multiple cases in courts in Gujarat wherein he was asked to appear twice in a month.

It was submitted that since Gokhale was engrossed in various criminal cases, he was unable to track record of Puri's defamation suit against him.

It was submitted that no formal notice was served on Gokhale that the earlier engaged counsel had stopped appearing and in absence of any information of his non appearance, he presumed that the matter was being contested and took no steps from his end.

Furthermore, referring to Gokhale's income tax returns, his counsel submitted that he was unable to afford services of advocate due to shortage of funds and therefore, could not take steps to file the application seeking recall of the ruling within limitation.

On the other hand, appearing for Puri, Singh submitted that all the legal difficulties cited by Gokhale date back to 2023. He also said that Gokhale is an internet savvy person and all the orders were available on the High Court website and could be checked.

Singh said that Gokhale was well aware of the order in question and that he was watching the court proceedings through virtual mode.

It was submitted that Gokhale does not deserve any indulgence looking at the background of the facts of the case and its situation.

The Court then proceeded to reserve order on Gokhale's application seeking recall of the ex parte order as well as in his application for condonation of delay in seeking the relief.

In December last year, Puri had moved a contempt plea alleging that Gokhale failed to comply with the last year ruling. She sought execution of the judgment in question. Gokhale was then directed to file an affidavit disclosing all his assets, properties and bank accounts The matter is pending consideration before the coordinate bench.

The defamation suit was filed by Puri being aggrieved by Gokhale's tweets referring to a property purchased by her in Switzerland. In the tweets, Gokhale raised questions regarding her and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's assets. He had also tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman in the tweets and sought an ED inquiry.

In the judgment, a coordinate bench, while decreeing the suit in favour of Puri, asked Gokhale to put an apology in Times of India. He was also directed to put the apology on his Twitter handle, which has to stay for 6 months.

Quoting William Shakespeare's Othello in the judgment, the court had held Gokhale was making “roving allegations” against Lakshmi Puri and her husband Hardeep Puri.

The suit contended that Gokhale's tweets were false and defamatory. It was Puri's case that the tweets were “maliciously motivated and designed accordingly, laced with canards and entail deliberate twisting of facts”.

In July 2021, a coordinate bench ruled in favour of Puri while deciding the interim injunction application in the suit.

The court had then directed Gokhale to take down the tweets in question within 24 hours. He was also restrained from posting any further defamatory material against Puri.

Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE