The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte order directing fintech journalist Arti Singh and tech news platform Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd founded by Singh, to take down allegedly defamatory articles against digital payments platform Cashfree Payments. 

In doing so the court held that the trial court's order–passed in a defamation suit filed by Cashfree–was unreasoned and failed to record findings on the three essential ingredients required for grant of an ex-parte injunction — a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

“Whenever an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is considered, the trial Court is required to deliberate upon three essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties,” Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed.

The Court noted that the Trial Court failed to spell out the fulfilment of essential requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) while grating ex-parte injunction order, and said, “In the present case on hand, it is apparently clear that reasons are not spelt out in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as to what is the prima facie case made out and the two other essential requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties.”

It added, “Therefore the order that is passed by the trial Court is clearly coming within the ambit of an unreasoned order, so also it would amount to an order which is perverse, arbitrary, capricious for having ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant of temporary injunction.”

Maintainability of appeal against the ex-parte injunction order

The Court further rejected the respondent's arguments that the appeal was not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code on the ground that the temporary injunction application was being still pending before the trial court.

For context, under Order XXXIX of the Code, Rule 1 and 2 provide for cases where temporary injunction can be granted, Rule 3 provides for issuance of notice to opposite party and procedures for granting ex-parte orders and Rule 4 relates to applications to vary or set aside an injunction order. Order XLIII Rule 1(r) provides for appeal against orders passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of Order XXXIX.

Referring to the Supreme Court rulings in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan & others and Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited & others vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the High Court observed, “On an ad interim exparte order of injunction, the appeal would be maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Explaining the remedy available to the aggrieved party, the Court further said, “It [Supreme Court ruling in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu case] also held that the choice is for the party affected by the said order either to move the appellate court or to approach the same court which passed the ex parte order for any relief. Therefore, there is a two-pronged remedy available for the person who suffers ex parte order of Temporary Injunction. One to move the very same Court, which passed the exparte order seeking for any relief. Second to move the appellate court against the said order.”

Finding the appeal maintainable, Justice Yerur set aside the Trial Court order. The High Court held that the impugned order was illegal and perverse, and remitted the matter to the trial Court to re-consider the injunction application afresh and pass a reasoned order after providing sufficient opportunity to both parties.

Background

Journalist Arti Singh and her media platform Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd, covering business, finance and fintech news, approached the High Court in appeal against a Trial Court order.

The Trial Court order had granted an ex-parte injunction against the appellants in a defamation suit filed by Cashfree Payments India Private Limited. The order directed the appellants to immediately take down the articles concerning the respondent from their social media handles and website.

Case Title: ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4754 OF 2026 (CPC-)

Click Here To Read/Download Order