Goa bar controversy: Irani’s daughter, not restaurant owner, never applied for license

The high court said the statements made by the three Congress leaders “appear to be bogus in the nature of defamatory and malicious intent,” deliberately hurling “great public ridicule” to Irani and “hurting moral character and public image”. The remarks of the BJP leader and his daughter were made by the High Court while perusing documents placed before him in a civil defamation suit filed by Irani against Congress leaders.

Last week, the High Court had issued summons to three Congress leaders in a civil defamation case. It was uploaded on the court’s website on Monday.

On July 29, the Delhi High Court directed three Congress leaders to delete their tweets regarding the same. The High Court warned that if the leaders failed to delete the tweets in the next 24 hours, Twitter would delete them.

“I have put on record various documents, in particular, a show cause notice dated 21st July, 2022, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Excise, Government of Goa, addressed to one Anthony DeGama and not to the plaintiff (Irani ) or members of his family.

“On perusal of the documents it is clearly seen that there was no such license which was ever issued in favor of the plaintiff or his daughter. The plaintiff or his daughter is not the owner of the restaurant. It has also been established prima facie by the plaintiff that the plaintiff or his daughter never applied for the license.

“Neither the restaurant nor the land on which the restaurant exists is owned by the plaintiff or his daughter, even the show cause notice issued by the Government of Goa is not in the name of the plaintiff or his daughter. in the affidavit by the plaintiff,” Justice Mini Pushkaran said in his 14-page order.

Smriti Irani and her 18-year-old daughter Zoish Irani recently landed in controversy after some Indian National Congress leaders revealed that Zoish was running an illegal bar in Goa by the name of Silly Souls. After this, Irani has filed a defamation case against the Congress leaders.

The High Court held that since the plaintiff holds a respectable position as a minister in the Government of India and in view of the nature of his public office, there is widespread public glare and scrutiny of any information about him in the public domain.

“Respondent No. 1 to 3 (Congress leaders) in connivance with each other and other individuals and organizations have hatched a conspiracy to make false, acrimonious, and belligerent personal attacks on the plaintiff and his daughter with the aim of defaming, defaming and injuring The reputation, moral character and public image of the plaintiff and his daughter.”

The High Court held that it is held that the statements made by the Congress leaders “are defamatory in nature and appear to be bogus with malicious intent, only to gain the highest amount of audience, thereby deliberately subjecting the plaintiff to a great goes to public ridicule”.

It said that “the plaintiff (Iranian) has made a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants”.

first article