[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court has reportedly asked fugitive businessman and Gitanjali Gems promoter Mehul Choksi to be physically present before it for hearing in his case against the Netflix series ‘Bad Boy Billionaires’.
The High Court noted that if Choksi wishes to take recourse to the courts of this country, it is within the court’s right to ask him to be physically present.The single judge bench had denied relief to Choksi, saying that a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable. Choksi had challenged the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the Netflix docuseries, claiming that he has been falsely accused of various crimes in India and had the right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial, along with the right to reputation. He has contended that the documentary series, which was released in October 2020, included a two-minute footage portraying him in a negative light.
On February 13, the court was informed that the amount was not deposited by Choksi. However, Choksi’s counsel said that such an order meant that the court had in essence prejudged the outcome of the appeal. “He is like a ghost…He is not here,” remarked the high court, adding that Choksi had still engaged the counsel for litigation. “If you have not deposited then why should we hear it? ” the high court questioned.
What Netflix said
Netflix had opposed the plea stating that internet video streaming platforms cannot be regulated, and the appropriate remedy for Choksi is to file a civil suit.
The high court had noted that Choksi was neither an Indian citizen nor a resident of India, and there were several proceedings pending against him in the country. It further said that if he did not succeed in his appeal, and if any costs are imposed on him, then there would be no way to recover the amount.
The High Court noted that if Choksi wishes to take recourse to the courts of this country, it is within the court’s right to ask him to be physically present.The single judge bench had denied relief to Choksi, saying that a writ petition for enforcement of a private right was not maintainable. Choksi had challenged the dismissal of his plea to pre-screen the Netflix docuseries, claiming that he has been falsely accused of various crimes in India and had the right to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial, along with the right to reputation. He has contended that the documentary series, which was released in October 2020, included a two-minute footage portraying him in a negative light.
On February 13, the court was informed that the amount was not deposited by Choksi. However, Choksi’s counsel said that such an order meant that the court had in essence prejudged the outcome of the appeal. “He is like a ghost…He is not here,” remarked the high court, adding that Choksi had still engaged the counsel for litigation. “If you have not deposited then why should we hear it? ” the high court questioned.
What Netflix said
Netflix had opposed the plea stating that internet video streaming platforms cannot be regulated, and the appropriate remedy for Choksi is to file a civil suit.
The high court had noted that Choksi was neither an Indian citizen nor a resident of India, and there were several proceedings pending against him in the country. It further said that if he did not succeed in his appeal, and if any costs are imposed on him, then there would be no way to recover the amount.
[ad_2]
Source link