Pre-Admission, Perpetual Intimidation: Piramal’s Defamation SLAPP Against DHFL Victims

Posted on 20th February, 2026 (GMT 12:31 hrs)

ABSTRACT

This document contends that the defamation suit filed by corporate tycoon Mr. Ajay Piramal (through DSK Legal) against DHFL victims and activists in Bombay High Court Suit S/42/2025 constitutes a textbook Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to chill constitutionally protected public-interest speech arising from criticism of the 2021 DHFL IBC resolution. Drawing on official court orders, registry records, and procedural chronology, it argues that the suit remains mired at the pre-admission/directions stage due to fatal defects—including continued filings under a defunct corporate name, defective service, ignored written statements, asymmetrical timelines, and uncured plaint infirmities—rendering it vulnerable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Situating the case within broader Indian jurisprudence cautioning against chilling-effect litigation, and invoking Articles 19(1)(a), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, the document frames the proceedings not as bona fide reputational redress but as corporate intimidation of financially devastated citizens engaged in non-violent civil dissent, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs.

Executive Summary

Piramal Finance Ltd. (formerly Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd., or PCHFL) has waged a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) via DSK Legal against DHFL victims and activists—including Unknown Defendant No. 6, OBMA founder-member Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay—in Bombay High Court Suit S/42/2025 (registered 17 March 2025, originating from Suit (L) No. 1227/2023 lodged 12 January 2023), claiming defamation through online dissent critiquing the 2021 IBC resolution that purportedly handed Piramal a windfall while inflicting devastating haircuts on lakhs of small depositors. An initial ex-parte injunction (1 March 2023) and summons on individuals such as Defendant No. 6 (served 28 June 2025 via Mumbai Sheriff with defective, opaque, redundant documents, misspelt identity as “DEBEBPRASAD SADHAN BANDOPADHYAY”, blank/redundant pages, outdated 2023 notarised exhibits, and an impossibly short 5-day paradoxical hearing window fixed for 3 July 2025) have failed to advance the case beyond procedural quagmire at the pre-admission/directions stage (next hearing 4 March 2026, per 4 February 2026 order accepting WhatsApp/email/courier service on remaining defendants 2, 7 & 9 with statutory WS period). Fatal infirmities persist: continued invocation of the plaintiff’s defunct old name post-22 March 2025 MCA/RBI-approved rename (nullifying all post-change filings under Companies Act, 2013); deliberate disregard of Defendant No. 6’s timely emailed pro-se Written Statement (2 July 2025, sent to verified Bombay HC emails within the 30-day receipt period stipulated in the summons itself), resulting in erroneous transfer to “Undefended Suits” list (17 October 2025 order); plaintiff’s repeated self-indulgent delays and “last chances” for service/affidavits (e.g., 11 June 2025 threat of dismissal under O.S. Rule 87, 17 December 2025 last chance, 13 February 2025 four-week extension under Rule 986 to cure objections or face rejection); stark asymmetries (90 days WS for served corporate defendants 10 & 11 per 15 July 2025 order vs. mere days for individual victims); and uncured plaint defects (illegible/small-font tweet exhibits at pp. 3878, 4084–4101, absent jurisdiction/limitation/court-fee averments, verification blanks, missing synopsis per Practice Notes). This textbook corporate intimidation mirrors SLAPP precedents: Supreme Court’s March 2024 warning on chilling-effect litigation, Rahul Gandhi conviction stays (2023 & 2025), Dhruv Rathee’s ₹5,000 costs imposition for plaintiff delays (Delhi District Court, 2025), Adani v. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta ex-parte gag quashing (Delhi Rohini, September 2025), The Wire’s persistent un-silenced exposé of Piramal/Flashnet cronyism (2018–ongoing), Bombay High Court’s outright dismissal of Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s ₹100-crore suit (10 October 2025), and Karnataka High Court’s landmark ruling in Kamalalaya Hiisoft (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Sree Venkateswara Developers (4 April 2023, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar) quashing Order 38 Rule 5 CPC attachment in a ₹100-crore defamation claim as impermissible fiction absent quantified pre-existing liability (relying on Supreme Court in Raman Tech. v. Solanki Traders, 2008). Absent any merits adjudication, decree, or cure of these defects, the suit stands procedurally moribund and ripe for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (no cause of action, abuse of process) with heavy exemplary costs under Section 35A CPC to deter harassment of financially devastated citizens engaged in non-violent Gandhian civil disobedience against alleged crony-capitalist impunity—vindicating Article 19(1)(a) protected public-interest speech, Article 14 equality, Article 21 dignity, and natural justice (audi alteram partem).

This comprehensive document has been authored by Prof. Bandyopadhyay, Founder-Member, OBMA
(Defendant No. 6 — erroneously described in the plaint as “Debebprasad Sadhan Bandopadhyay”)
In solidarity with all the suffering DHFL Victims and OBMA Activists.

This standalone open-source transparent public document is respectfully addressed to:

A) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Prothonotary & Senior Master, Mr. Anil H. Laddhad)

B) The Bar Council of India

C) Members of the Non-Godi Media/Press: Fourth and Fifth Pillars of Democracy

D) The Parliament of India

E) Every citizen committed to the guarantees of Article 19(1)(a), Article 14, and the Rule of Law under the Constitution of India.

We, the lakhs of DHFL Fixed Deposit & NCD holders whose life savings were erased in the controversial 2021 IBC resolution, are not defamers. We are citizens speaking truth to corporate power on a matter of immense public interest. What Piramal Finance Ltd. (through DSK Legal) has filed is a textbook SLAPP – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – designed solely to harass, exhaust, and silence victims. We include NRIs, senior citizens, widows of retired army personnel, physically challenged individuals, and charitable/philanthropic and Jesuit institutions—ordinary people whose lifetime savings were erased, now facing compounded harassment from corporate-legal overreach.

A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is a legal action—typically framed as defamation, injunction, or damages—filed not primarily to win on merits, but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence critics by burdening them with costly, time-consuming litigation. The objective is deterrence through process itself: prolonged hearings, inflated damage claims, ex-parte injunctions, and procedural pressure create a chilling effect on free speech. Courts in India, including the Supreme Court of India, have cautioned against such misuse of litigation to suppress public-interest expression, recognizing that the threat of legal harassment can be as silencing as a final judgment.

Below is the complete, date-by-date chronology drawn from the official Bombay High Court orders (S/42/2025 read with connected S/1227/2023), the case details on the High Court portal (CNR No. HCBM020012272023), the documents served on us, and the plaintiff’s own filings. Every fact is now irrefutably proven by the attached court records.

Chronological Table (Updated with Official Orders)

Date	Exact Event (Court Reference & Quote from Order)	Legal Consequence	Why This Strongly Favours the DHFL Victims
12 Jan 2023	Plaint lodged as SL/1227/2023 (later renumbered S/42/2025) against “Unknown Defendant No.1 & Ors.” including social-media critics.	Ex-parte stage set.	Suit against “unknown” persons – classic SLAPP fishing expedition.
1 Mar 2023	Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted (connected to 1227/2023).	Chilling effect on speech.	Overbroad restraint on public-interest criticism – violative of Article 19(1)(a).
6 Apr 2023	Order of Chagla J.: Additional affidavit to be filed.	Minor procedural step.	Plaintiff delayed prosecution.
22 Mar 2025	Official name change: Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. → Piramal Finance Ltd. (MCA/RBI approved, effective 22 Mar 2025; public intimation 24 Mar 2025).	Plaintiff entity ceases to exist under old name.	Fatal jurisdictional defect. All subsequent documents filed in the name of a non-existent company are a nullity under Companies Act, 2013.
17 Mar 2025	Suit registered as S/42/2025 (Reg. Date 17/03/2025). Plaint still in old “PCHFL” name.	Renewed SLAPP.	Filing in name of defunct company = abuse of process.
11 Jun 2025	Prothonotary order: Plaintiff directed to file Affidavit of Service, failing which suit to be dismissed (O.S. Rule 87).	Plaintiff given time.	Plaintiff repeatedly seeking extensions.
15 Jul 2025	Service on Def 10 & 11 (LinkedIn) accepted (June 2025). WS to be filed within 90 days or Undefended.	Timeline set.	Plaintiff enjoyed full 90 days; victims given days/weeks.
28 Jun 2025	Writ of Summons served on me (Defendant No. 6) via Mumbai Sheriff (delivered ~4:30 PM to spouse). Contains identity error (“DEBEBPRASAD SADHAN BANDOPADHYAY”), blank pages, old 2023 documents, hearing fixed 3 Jul 2025 (5-day window).	Service effected.	Pre-admission style summons post-admission; impossibly short timeline; defective documents.
2 Jul 2025	I email pro-se Written Statement to all verified Bombay High Court emails (within 30 days of receipt).	Defence on record.	Email WS valid (DSK itself used WhatsApp/email for others; e-filing protocols apply). Court later ignored it.
3 Sep 2025	Order: Missing pages to be supplied; plaintiff to file Affidavit of Service.	Plaintiff delays.	Plaint exhibits defective (small font tweets noted in objections).
8 Oct 2025	Def 5 transferred to Long Causes; Def 10 & 11 to Undefended despite service. Def 8 service “in transit” but copy received.	Partial progress.	Plaintiff struggling with its own service; multiple defendants undefended.
17 Oct 2025	Key Order (Anil H. Laddhad): “Despite service, Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 failed to file Written Statement… Suit against Defendant Nos. 1,3,4 and 6 is transferred to the list of Undefended Suit.” Def 8 WS accepted after delay condoned. Plaintiff to serve 2,7,9 or dismissal.	My suit (Def 6) moved to Undefended list.	Direct violation of natural justice. My timely emailed WS ignored. Challengeable under Order IX Rule 7/13 CPC.
17 Dec 2025	Last chance to serve 2,7,9; adj to 4 Feb 2026. Def 8 WS formally accepted.	Extension granted.	Plaintiff given repeated “last chances”.
4 Feb 2026	Service on Def 2 (WhatsApp), 7 (email), 9 (courier+email) accepted. They to file WS or Undefended. Adjourned to 4 March 2026.	Remaining defendants given time.	Plaintiff using modern modes (WhatsApp/email) for itself but objects to my email WS.
Current (20 Feb 2026)	Case status on portal: “Pre-Admission” (despite 9 months of summons & hearings). Last listed 4 Feb 2026. Next date 4 March 2026. Plaintiff still filing affidavits in old “PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED” name.	Ongoing at directions stage.	No decree possible without curing fatal defects.

Here are all the compiled orders till date (20-02-2026) for reference:

BHC ORDERS DSK LEGAL VS DHFL VICTIMS TILL FEB 2026Download

Current status as shown on BHC Website:

Defendant No. 6’s self-represented court response as written statement:

Gmail – Submission of Self-Represented Response in Case No. S_42_2025 – Ajay Piramal_PCHFL (through DSK Legal) vs. Debaprasad Sadhan Bandopadhyay (sic) and othersDownload

Written Response from Defendant No. 6Download

Additional Grave Irregularities Confirmed by Official Records (Miscellanious Info. and Objections Retrieved from Bombay High Court Website)

1. Plaintiff Identity Fraud Every single order and affidavit from June 2025 to February 2026 continues to describe the plaintiff as “Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited” – 33+ days after the company legally ceased to exist. This is not a typographical error; it is a continuing misrepresentation that renders the entire suit a nullity. Furthermore, the “reverse merger/rebranding” technique has been utilized in this case by Mr. Piramal’s company to allegedly/reportedly disown past liabilities/legal responsbilities.
2. My Written Statement Deliberately Ignored The 17 Oct 2025 order falsely states I “failed to file Written Statement”. My 2 July 2025 email WS (sent within time stipulated in the summons itself) is on record with the court’s verified emails. DSK Legal used WhatsApp/email service on other defendants and the court accepted private service for Def 8. The “undefended” tag is factually incorrect and violative of audi alteram partem.
3. Plaint Riddled with Technical Defects Official objections (raised Jan 2023, noted “complied” Mar 2025) include: illegible/small-font tweets (pages 3878, 4084-4101), missing jurisdiction/limitation/court-fee averments, no proper synopsis, verification defects, redundancies, empty pages, opaque documents, etc. These were never substantively cured.
4. “Pre-Admission” Status vs. Post-Summons Reality The High Court portal still shows the suit as “Pre-Admission” even after nine months of summons, affidavits of service, and transfer of defendants to “Undefended”/“Long Causes” lists. This internal contradiction itself is ground for rejection.
5. Asymmetric Treatment Plaintiff gets repeated extensions and “last chances”; victims get 5-day windows and sheriff service with defective documents.
6. “Cancelled” Stamps on Amended Plaint Page – Direct Evidence of Fatal Defect The scanned page from the amended plaint (Suit (L) No. 1227/2023, later S/42/2025) bears prominent red “CANCELLED” stamps (repeated twice) directly over the plaintiff’s name (“PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED”) and registered office details (4th Floor, Piramal Tower, Peninsula Corporate Park…). This is a physical/manual cancellation by the Bombay High Court registry (Prothonotary & Senior Master) to mark that this version/page is no longer valid due to the company’s legal name change to Piramal Finance Ltd. effective 22 March 2025 (MCA/RBI approved, public intimation 24 March 2025). Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings) and Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013, the plaint must reflect the current legal entity; failure renders filings defective or a nullity. The registry stamped “CANCELLED” during scrutiny/re-filing around March 2025 (visible “10/3” date and “105/23” markings), noting the old name as superseded without proper amendment. Handwritten notes (“Amended this 10th day of March 2025”, “passed pursuant to Court Order… R.I. Chagla J”) indicate an attempted amendment, but the cancellation confirms the old details were voided. Currency notes (₹10 and ₹5) are routine court-fee/verification stamps, unrelated to cancellation. This court-originated evidence proves the fatal jurisdictional defect: the plaintiff relies on a non-existent entity name in later filings (e.g., 2025–2026 orders/affidavits still use “PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED”). It bolsters rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (no proper cause of action/legal standing) and abuse of process grounds.

NCLT (19 May 2021) and NCLAT (27 January 2022) Orders Seemingly Ignored in the Piramal SLAPP Suit: Unmasking the Selective Narrative of an “Approved” Resolution

I. NCLT Mumbai Bench Order dated 19 May 2021 (in CP(IB) No. 4258/MB/C-II/2019) The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, in a significant pre-approval intervention, directed the RBI-appointed Committee of Creditors (CoC) to reconsider the second settlement proposal submitted by DHFL’s erstwhile promoter Kapil Wadhawan. This order came after the CoC had already approved Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.’s (now Piramal Finance Ltd.) resolution plan with an overwhelming majority (93.65% voting share on 15 January 2021). The NCLT observed that the CoC’s refusal to consider the promoter’s offer (which allegedly promised higher recovery for creditors) warranted reconsideration to ensure fairness and maximisation of value under the IBC framework. This directive highlighted potential procedural lapses or inadequate evaluation by the CoC, questioning whether the Piramal plan truly represented the best possible outcome for creditors, including small depositors facing massive haircuts.

II. NCLAT New Delhi Order dated 27 January 2022 (in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 454-455, 750 of 2021 and connected matters) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) went further, setting aside key aspects of the Piramal resolution plan approval process and directing the CoC to reconsider specific clauses, particularly the treatment of recoveries from avoidance applications (under Section 66 IBC for fraudulent/wrongful trading). The NCLAT held that such recoveries (arising from alleged irregularities during DHFL’s management) should benefit the CoC/creditors, not be appropriated by the Successful Resolution Applicant (Piramal). It criticised the CoC’s commercial wisdom as potentially misapplied, noting material irregularities and statutory violations in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The appellate tribunal also set aside an NCLT order directing CoC to vote on Wadhawan’s proposal, but overall, the 27 January 2022 judgment exposed flaws in the CoC’s conduct and the plan’s fairness, remanding aspects back for reconsideration to protect creditor interests.

Strikingly, in both instances, Mr. Piramal—acting as the “successful bidder”—received exceptionally swift justice: first, from the NCLAT on 25 May 2021, which stayed the NCLT’s 19 May 2021 order, and then from the Supreme Court on 11 April 2022 concerning the NCLAT’s 27 January 2022 order. Meanwhile, thousands, even lakhs, of ordinary cases languish unresolved in Indian courts. Does this suggest that Mr. Piramal enjoys privileged access to judicial relief in contemporary India, while DHFL victims—who have suffered massive haircuts to their lifetime savings—are left to endure SLAPP harassment without having committed any wrongdoing?

III. Why These Adverse Orders Are Seemingly/Apparently Sidelined in the SLAPP Suit: Despite these judicial interventions — which directly questioned the CoC’s process, Piramal’s plan clauses, and recoveries for creditors — the subsequent NCLT approval order (7 June 2021) and the Supreme Court’s final upholding (1 April 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1632-1634 of 2022 & connected matters) have been selectively emphasised in Piramal’s defamation narrative to portray the resolution as unassailable and “commercially wise.” The NCLT’s 19 May 2021 direction and NCLAT’s 27 January 2022 criticisms (including on avoidance recoveries and CoC lapses) are conspicuously absent from the plaintiff’s claims of reputational harm. This selective silence in the SLAPP suit (S/42/2025) underscores its true intent: not to protect legitimate reputation, but to chill legitimate public discourse on structural flaws in the DHFL IBC process, the RBI-appointed CoC’s role, and the alleged crony-capitalist outcomes (in alleged collusion with the BJP) that wiped out small depositors while benefiting Piramal. These earlier adverse orders remain part of the public record and validate the victims’ criticism as protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) — truth in public interest — rather than actionable defamation.

Unassailable Defences on Merits and Procedure

• Truth + Public Good (Exceptions to S.499 IPC) – criticism of IBC process affecting public money.
• Article 19(1)(a) & 21 – protected speech on financial scam or other such public-interest issues/matters.
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC – plaint liable to rejection for non-disclosure of name change, defective exhibits, abuse of process.
• Exemplary costs under S.35A CPC for SLAPP.
• No anti-SLAPP law yet, but Indian courts routinely dismiss such suits (precedents: Tata Sons v. Greenpeace, PepsiCo principles).

Landmark Judicial Precedents Recognizing and Curbing SLAPP Tactics and Misuse of Defamation Law in India

Indian courts have repeatedly recognised and curtailed the weaponisation of defamation suits by powerful corporate and political entities to silence public-interest criticism. These binding authorities directly apply to and strengthen our defence:

• Supreme Court Warning on SLAPPs (March 2024): The Supreme Court explicitly defined SLAPP as “litigation predominantly initiated by entities that wield immense economic power against members of the media or civil society, to prevent the public from knowing about or participating in important affairs in the public interest.” It cautioned that interim injunctions often act as a “death sentence” to the material sought to be published, well before allegations are proven. Courts must remain vigilant against prolonged litigation that chills free speech.
• Rahul Gandhi defamation cases: In the 2019 “Modi surname” case, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction in August 2023, observing that the two-year sentence was disproportionate and that defamation law cannot be misused to disqualify or silence political critics. In a fresh 2025 case (remarks on Armed Forces during Bharat Jodo Yatra), the Supreme Court again stayed criminal defamation proceedings in August 2025, issuing notice and protecting speech on matters of national/public concern.
• Dhruv Rathee defamation suit (Suresh Nakhua v. Dhruv Rathee, Delhi District Court, December 2025): In a SLAPP-style suit over a YouTube video criticising “godi youtubers,” the court imposed ₹5,000 costs on the BJP leader plaintiff for repeated procedural delays and affidavit errors. The matter is now listed for March 2026 on Dhruv Rathee’s Order VII Rule 11 application for outright rejection of the plaint – demonstrating judicial intolerance for harassing litigation against public-interest commentators.
• Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Ors. (Delhi Rohini Court, September 2025): Adani obtained an ex-parte “John Doe” gag order restraining journalists (including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta) from publishing any material the company deemed “defamatory.” The court swiftly quashed the order as “unsustainable,” holding that it denied the journalists a hearing and amounted to an overbroad prior restraint. The case continues, but the gag was lifted, reaffirming that public-interest journalism on corporate matters cannot be silenced through ex-parte corporate injunctions. (This is the latest in a series of Adani suits against Thakurta since 2017.)
• The Wire investigations on Piramal / Flashnet scam (2018 onwards): The Wire exposed alleged crony dealings, including Piramal Estates Pvt Ltd acquiring shares in Flashnet Info Solutions (linked to BJP Minister Piyush Goyal’s family) at a 100,000% premium shortly after Goyal’s ministerial appointment. Despite such hard-hitting public-interest reporting on the very corporate-political nexus at issue in the DHFL matter, no successful defamation action has silenced The Wire. This underscores that truth-based scrutiny of powerful entities enjoys full constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and the public-good exceptions to defamation law.

Additional Precedents on Fictitious/Exaggerated ₹100 Crore+ Damages Claims in Defamation Suits (Directly Applicable to Any Such Claim in the Present Plaint)

Indian courts treat astronomical, unsupported damage claims (commonly ₹100 crore in corporate SLAPPs) as indicative of bad faith and harassment rather than genuine redress. Such fictitious amounts trigger rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (no proper cause of action disclosed; relief not bona fide) or related provisions, as they lack specificity on actual, quantifiable loss and serve primarily to intimidate rather than compensate.

• Bombay High Court dismisses Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s ₹100-Crore Defamation Suit (10 October 2025, Justice Jitendra Jain): The actor filed a civil defamation suit claiming ₹100 crore damages against his brother and ex-wife for alleged misappropriation and media defamation. The Bombay High Court dismissed the entire suit for non-prosecution after the plaintiff and counsel failed to appear. This recent, same-court precedent proves that even celebrity ₹100-crore claims receive no special protection and are liable to outright dismissal when the plaintiff cannot diligently pursue them. Inflated figures do not intimidate the court; they expose the SLAPP motive.
• Court-fee deterrent against fictitious claims: In Bombay High Court (Maharashtra), court fees on claimed damages are ad valorem (percentage-based). A ₹100-crore claim requires payment of several lakhs to crores in upfront fees. Filing or maintaining such an exaggerated, unsupported amount without specific particulars of actual loss (e.g., quantifiable business/reputational harm) amounts to abuse of process and invites rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (b) CPC.
• Karnataka High Court precedent on ₹100-crore defamation claims as “fiction” (Kamalalaya Hiisoft (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Sree Venkateswara Developers, 4 April 2023, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar): In this defamation suit where the respondent (plaintiff) claimed ₹100 crores in damages for alleged slanderous/libelous statements, the Karnataka High Court quashed the trial court’s Order 38 Rule 5 CPC attachment application before judgment. The Court held that such a massive claim “cannot be called a specified sum which has arisen out of a transaction giving rise to existence of a debt or liability or obligation.” Until the court decides entitlement, the ₹100-crore claim remains a “fiction” — not a pre-existing debt/liability — rendering pre-judgment attachment impermissible. Applications under Order 38 Rule 5 in such suits must be dismissed in limine as abuse of process (relying on Supreme Court in Raman Tech. v. Solanki Traders, 2008). This directly supports rejecting or dismissing plaints/applications with fictitious high damages in defamation, as exaggerated claims without proven harm indicate harassment over legitimate redress.
• General principle upheld across High Courts: In multiple defamation suits (including satire cases dismissed by Delhi High Court), plaints claiming massive damages without evidence of actual injury have been rejected at the threshold because “the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action”. Exaggerated claims are viewed as tools of intimidation, not legitimate compensation (compensatory damages in Indian defamation are modest — usually lakhs, rarely crossing a few crores even in high-profile cases — unless strictly proven). Karnataka High Court aligns with this by treating unquantified mega-claims as non-actionable “fiction” until merits adjudication, bolstering grounds for Order VII Rule 11 rejection in SLAPP-like suits.

These precedents collectively demonstrate judicial intolerance for inflated, unsubstantiated damages in defamation litigation, especially when used to chill speech or harass opponents. Any ₹100-crore (or equivalent fictitious) claim in the Piramal plaint would be procedurally vulnerable on similar grounds — lack of bona fide cause, abuse of process, and failure to disclose triable specifics — warranting outright rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with exemplary costs under Section 35A CPC.

Current Status (As of 20 Feb 2026)

The suit is pending at pre-admission-fresh/directions stage (for almost 3 years!), next listed 4 March 2026. No ex-parte decree, no final hearing. Multiple defendants already declared “undefended”, plaintiff still using non-existent company name, my WS ignored. The suit is procedurally dead and merits outright dismissal with costs.

Final Call to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

This is not defamation litigation. This is corporate legal terrorism against citizens who lost everything in the DHFL scam and its aftermath. We are not against any individual, but structural/systemic issues/variables/entrenchments of crony-monopoly-duopoly capitalism in BJP-led contemporary India. The alleged/widely reported procedural fraud/manipulation, identity suppression, selective application of rules, and fictitious high-damages claim are so egregious that the only just order is:

• Immediate rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
• Imposition of heavy exemplary costs on the plaintiff.
• Direction to Piramal Finance Ltd. to compensate victims for harassment.

The suit is procedurally moribund and substantively untenable. It violates protected public-interest speech under Article 19(1)(a), equality under Article 14, and the principles of natural justice. We respectfully urge the Hon’ble Court to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (no cause of action, abuse of process) and impose exemplary costs under Section 35A CPC to deter such harassment of financially ruined citizens engaged in non-violent Gandhian civil disobedience.

Arrest me. Erase me. But you cannot silence the truth.

Satyameva Jayate. Jai Hind. Inquilab Zindabad.

Sincerely,

Defendant No. 6, pro-se and All the DHFL Victims Concerned / OBMA 20 February 2026

References

6 March 2023: “BJP AND PIRAMAL ARE AFRAID: SUPPRESSION OF OBMA’S ONLINE ACTIVISM!” – Early blog highlighting suppression of online dissent via threats and legal intimidation. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/03/06/bjp-and-piramal-are-afraid-suppression-of-obmas-online-activism/

1 April 2023: “LOUD VOICES MADE THE DEAF HEAR: PIRAMAL CHFL’S LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE CYBER-DISSENTERS” – Response to initial legal threats, framing activism as democratic expression. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/04/01/loud-voices-made-the-deaf-hear-piramal-chfls-legal-action-against-the-cyber-dissenters/

3 April 2023: “PLEASURE OF “THE TRIAL”: A LETTER TO PCHFL’S LEGAL ADVOCATES” – Satirical open letter to DSK Legal critiquing the “pleasure” of corporate legalism. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/04/03/pleasure-of-the-trial-a-letter-to-pchfls-legal-advocates/

22 April 2023: “ATTACK AND COUNTER-ATTACK: A LETTER TO PCHFL’S LEGAL TEAM” – Counter-response to legal notices, emphasizing resistance. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/04/22/attack-and-counter-attack-a-letter-to-pchfls-legal-team/

28 April 2023: “ĀHLĀDA OR JOUISSANCE DUE TO LEGAL INTIMIDATION: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE PCHFL’S LEGAL TEAM” – Follow-up on intimidation effects, with philosophical critique. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/04/28/ahlada-or-jouissance-due-to-legal-intimidation-follow-up-letter-to-the-pchfls-legal-team/

23 May 2023: “DEAR MR. PIRAMAL AND DSK LEGAL TEAM, I WANNA BE DEFAMED” – Satirical invitation to defame, challenging the SLAPP motive. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/05/23/dear-mr-piramal-and-dsk-legal-team-i-wanna-be-defamed/

17 June 2023: “WHO IS TO BE DEFAMED: PIRAMAL CHFL OR THE DHFL VICTIMS?” – Questioning who the real victim of defamation is in the narrative. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/06/17/who-is-to-be-defamed-piramal-chfl-or-the-dhfl-victims/

20 June 2023: “OBMA’S WEB-BASED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE MOVEMENT: AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. AJAY PIRAMAL” – Declaration of non-violent online resistance movement. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/06/20/obmas-web-based-civil-disobedience-movement-an-open-letter-to-mr-ajay-piramal/

2 October 2023: “GET WELL SOON: GREETINGS TO MR. PIRAMAL, DHFL-COC, DSK LEGAL AND THE BJP” – Sarcastic “get well” message to key figures in the resolution process. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/10/02/get-well-soon-greetings-to-mr-piramal-dhfl-coc-dsk-legal-and-the-bjp/

8 August 2023: “TWEETS ON DHFL SCAM: INVISIBLY VISIBLE?!” – Compilation of tweets highlighting ongoing but suppressed visibility of scam discussions. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2023/08/08/tweets-on-dhfl-scam-invisibly-visible/

28 June 2025: “DHFL Victims Under Legal Siege by Crony Piramal: What’s Next?” – Update on summons service (28 June 2025 parcel), procedural asymmetries, and call for continued resistance. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/06/28/dhfl-victims-under-legal-siege-by-crony-piramal-whats-next/

30 June 2025: “JUSTICE VIA INTIMIDATION? A FINANCIALLY ABUSED CITIZEN VS. THE CORPORATE-STATE NEXUS” – Detailed critique of summons defects, ignored WS, name-change fraud, and Gandhian response to corporate-state nexus. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/06/30/justice-via-intimidation-a-financially-abused-citizen-vs-the-corporate-state-nexus/

31 July 2025: “DSK LEGAL AND THE THEATRE OF LAW: A GANDHIAN RESPONSE TO CORPORATE LEGALISM” – Response to 25 July 2025 notice demanding appearance on 28 July 2025 (impossibly short notice), critiquing legal “theatre” and reaffirming non-violent resistance. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/07/31/dsk-legal-and-the-theatre-of-law-a-gandhian-response-to-corporate-legalism/

4 November 2025: “ARREST ME OR ERASE ME — BUT YOUR CORPORATE EMPIRE CANNOT SILENCE ME: A LETTER TO AJAY PIRAMAL” – Defiant letter challenging arrest threats and corporate silencing. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/11/04/arrest-me-or-erase-me-but-your-corporate-empire-cannot-silence-me-a-letter-to-ajay-piramal/

19 November 2025: “SLAPPocalypse Now: When Corporate Fragility Meets the DPDP Act – A Sarcastic Missive to Ajay Piramal Featuring a Case Against OBMA” – Satirical take on SLAPP irony with DPDP Act and ongoing case. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/11/19/slappocalypse-now-when-corporate-fragility-meets-the-dpdp-act-a-sarcastic-missive-to-ajay-piramal-featuring-a-case-against-obma/

16 August 2025: “RESIST FEAR, DEFEND FREEDOM: STOP SLAPPs, STOP SURVEILLANCE” – Call to resist SLAPPs and surveillance in broader democratic context. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/08/16/resist-fear-defend-freedom-stop-slapps-stop-surveillance/

4 August 2025: “IN THE SHADOW OF MR. PARAMAVAISNAVA: DEFAMATION, DISSENT, AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS” – Critique linking defamation to dissent suppression under corporate influence. Link: https://onceinabluemoon2021.in/2025/08/04/in-the-shadow-of-mr-paramavaisnava-defamation-dissent-and-democratic-rights/

The above document was formally sent to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Mr. Ajay Piramal, and DSK Legal Team, the text of which is given as follows:

To:

The Hon’ble Chief Justice

Bombay High Court

To:
Hon’ble Prothonotary and Senior Master
Bombay High Court

 Subject: Formal Intimation of Public Document Concerning Suit No. S/42/2025

Dear Sir,

I write to formally place on record a comprehensive public document titled:

“Pre-Admission, Perpetual Intimidation: Piramal’s Defamation SLAPP Against DHFL Victims”

Published on 20 February 2026, the article is accessible at the following URL:

This document compiles, in a structured and fully referenced manner, the procedural history, official court orders, registry notations, and legal objections pertaining to Bombay High Court Suit No. S/42/2025 (originating from Suit (L) No. 1227/2023), along with supporting materials drawn directly from publicly available judicial records.

The purpose of this communication is threefold:

1.    Transparency – To ensure that all concerned parties have access to a consolidated, chronologically documented, and source-referenced account of the procedural developments in the matter, drawn directly from official court records and publicly available judicial documents.

2.    Good Faith Disclosure – To reiterate that the issues raised relate to questions of public interest, procedural integrity, and constitutional protections under Articles 19(1)(a), 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the analysis is grounded in established legal principles and binding judicial precedents concerning defamation law, abuse of process, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and judicial caution against SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)-style litigation.

3.    Opportunity for Clarification – To invite any factual corrections, documentary clarifications, or formal responses from the Plaintiff or its legal representatives, should any aspect be contested, and to reaffirm my willingness to incorporate verified corrections in the interest of accuracy and fairness.

This publication does not seek to dishonour the Court nor prejudice proceedings. It is an exercise of constitutionally protected public-interest expression arising from the lived traumatic experiences of DHFL victims and/or affected citizens. The documentation relies on official orders, registry markings, and filed materials, and is presented in the spirit of democratic accountability and legal transparency. 

We categorically clarify that we are not defaming Mr. Ajay Piramal or any other individual for that matter. Our core critique remains systemic and structural. It concerns what we perceive as entrenched patterns of crony–duopoly capitalism, concentration of wealth (vis a vis other 98%; this goes against Article 39c, Directive Principles of State Policy, Indian Constitution), regulatory capture, and concentrated corporate power in contemporary India. The questions raised are about processes, institutional asymmetries, and structural injustice — not personal vilification or character assassination.

If the Hon’ble Court Registry is of the view that any factual statement made herein (the attached article) requires clarification, I respectfully request that such concerns be communicated to me in writing, clearly specifying the particular statement in question and accompanied by the relevant documentary record or material relied upon. I remain fully open and willing to provide any necessary explanation or supporting documentation (as per my limited capacities) in response.

Kindly treat this email as a formal intimation of the publication and as an offer to provide any additional documentation that may assist in ensuring procedural accuracy and fairness.

Sincerely,

(Un-)known Defendant No. 6 (Pro Se since July 2, 2025)
On behalf of concerned DHFL Fixed Deposit and NCD Holders
Founder-Member, Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA)
20 February 2026

COPY TO:

1. Mr. Ajay Piramal

2. DSK Legal