ArdorComm Media Group

Contact Us
Menu

Legal Battle

Delhi High Court Upholds Ban on Bloomberg’s Defamatory Article Against ZEE Entertainment

1 Comment / By / Media Entertainment & Art Community
News on MEA ArdorComm Media Group Delhi High Court Upholds Ban on Bloomberg’s Defamatory Article Against ZEE Entertainment

Bloomberg India’s legal woes deepen as the Delhi High Court delivers a blow by dismissing its appeal against ZEE Entertainment Enterprises. Upholding the Sessions Court’s order from March 1, 2024, the High Court reaffirmed the injunction restraining Bloomberg from disseminating the allegedly defamatory article dated February 21, 2024, targeting ZEE Entertainment. Justice Shalinder Kaur, in her ruling, emphasized the existence of prima facie evidence supporting the necessity of an interim injunction, citing potential irreparable harm if the defamatory content remained unchecked. The court’s decision to dismiss Bloomberg’s appeal underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the need to protect ZEE Entertainment’s reputation from further harm. Furthermore, the High Court directed Bloomberg to adhere to the directives of the additional District Judge within three days, underscoring the urgency of compliance with the legal proceedings. ZEE Entertainment had filed a lawsuit in the Delhi Sessions Court, alleging that Bloomberg’s article contained false and misleading information aimed at tarnishing the company’s image. The Sessions Court had previously issued an interim ex-parte order on March 1, 2024, instructing Bloomberg to remove the contentious article from its platform within a week and refrain from publishing it on any medium, online or offline. ZEE Entertainment argued that the article’s inaccuracies regarding corporate governance and business operations had led to a significant decline in its share price, causing substantial losses for investors. With the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of Bloomberg’s appeal, the legal battle between the media giant and ZEE Entertainment intensifies, highlighting the importance of upholding journalistic integrity and corporate reputation in the digital age.  

Sony Confirms Termination of $10 Billion Merger Deal with Zee Entertainment, Legal Battle Looms

Leave a Comment / By / Human Resource Community
News on HR 3 ArdorComm Media Group Sony Confirms Termination of $10 Billion Merger Deal with Zee Entertainment, Legal Battle Looms

Sony Corporation officially announced on Monday the termination of its proposed $10 billion mega-merger deal with Zee Entertainment, marking the collapse of the ambitious alliance that aimed to create India’s largest entertainment company. The agreement was intended to provide substantial financial prowess, positioning the unified entity to compete with global streaming giants like Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., as well as local conglomerates such as Reliance Industries Ltd, currently exploring potential partnerships with Disney. The termination notice served by Sony brings an abrupt end to the negotiations, which had been anticipated as Sony Group Corp signaled its hesitancy to extend the discussions beyond the originally agreed-upon deadline. The termination follows a report on January 21 by ET (Economic Times) indicating that Sony was unlikely to prolong the good faith negotiations with Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (ZEEL). Zee Entertainment, in response to Sony’s move, expressed its intention to take legal action against the Japanese conglomerate, setting the stage for a potential legal battle between the two entities. The fallout from the failed merger deal adds a layer of complexity to the media landscape, with Zee Entertainment now reassessing its strategic options. In a prior development, Zee had requested Sony to extend the merger deadline from December 21, 2023, citing the need for more time. The merger deal, initially inked on December 22, 2021, faced hurdles and uncertainties, ultimately leading to its termination. The termination of the Sony-Zee merger deal raises questions about the future trajectory of both companies in the highly competitive Indian entertainment market. Industry observers are closely watching the aftermath of this high-profile breakdown and its potential implications for the broader media and entertainment landscape in India.

Supreme Court Advocates Leeway for Government Adjustments in Citizenship Act, Cites National Interest

Leave a Comment / By / Governance Community
news on government

Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for the government to have the flexibility to make crucial adjustments for the nation’s well-being. The statement came during the hearing of 17 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which is specific to Assam. A five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, highlighted the challenges faced by northeastern states, particularly those affected by insurgency and violence. Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed that governments must be granted “latitude and leeway” to make necessary adjustments, acknowledging the complexities and unique circumstances in various regions. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, inserted as a special provision for individuals covered under the Assam Accord, outlines criteria for granting citizenship to those who migrated to Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The provision sets March 25, 1971, as the cutoff date for citizenship, affecting individuals from specified territories, including Bangladesh. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, is considering the constitutional validity of section 6A, particularly its impact on the rights of individuals and the homogeneous classification of states. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that section 6A operates in a “blanket manner” and rewards illegal immigrants who continue to reside in Assam against the citizenship law. Divan called for a declaration of the provision as invalid and urged the government to formulate a policy for the settlement and rehabilitation of individuals who arrived in Assam after January 6, 1951. The court questioned whether Parliament could allow the continuation of strife in Assam due to discrimination among states. It raised concerns about the potential discrimination between states and the need for a balanced solution to address the complex issues faced by Assam. The hearing, which remained inconclusive, will resume on Thursday. The court had earlier sought data on the beneficiaries of section 6A to evaluate its impact on Assam’s demographic and cultural identity. As the legal battle unfolds, the Supreme Court’s stance reflects the delicate balance between national interest, security concerns, and the protection of individual rights.