Salman Khan who was sued by his Panvel neighbour for defamation appears to be supported by evidence. According to the reports, a civil court in Mumbai found that the ‘defamatory’ remarks made by the neighbour, NRI Ketan Kakkad, are apparently supported by ‘evidence.’ The court also stated that Salman could not prove that Ketan Kakkad was speaking about the actor in the ‘defamatory’ video interview to which he complained.
Additional Sessions Judge Anil Laddhad denied Salman’s request for an interim order prohibiting Kakkad from making any more statements about him or his family members in connection with Salman’s farmhouse in Panvel, Raigad district.
Kakkad owns a plot on a hill near Khan’s farmhouse. Pradeep Gandhy, Salman’s lawyer, alleged that Ketan made false, derogatory, and defamatory charges in videos, blogs, and tweets. According to the lawyer, Ketan attempted to purchase a plot of property next to Salman’s farmhouse, but the deal was cancelled by the authorities because it was illegal. He then began making false charges that the deal was cancelled at the request of Khan and his family, according to Gandhy.
Kakkad’s counsel however objected to Khan’s request for redress, claiming that the assertions were regarding facts about Salman’s property and could not be considered defamation. In the interview, Ketan stated that unlawful activities were taking place at the farmhouse.
Ketan Kakkad bought his land in 1996. He retired in 2014 and intended to live there, but he couldn’t because of encumbrances brought by Salman Khan and his family, according to the lawyers. After reviewing the tweets and videos, the judge concluded that Salman failed to explain how the innuendos in the tweets related to him.
“The defendant (Ketan) contended that he is a whistle-blower to the illegal acts done by the plaintiff (Salman) and he made imputations in public interest by taking reasonable precautions by producing documentary material in support of the same,” the judge noted. “Therefore, at preliminary stage. …as the plaintiff failed to explain innuendo, how it relates to him, and the defendant raised the plea of justification which is prima facie supported by documentary evidence… I am not inclined to grant an injunction to the plaintiff,” the court ruled.