No Foul Comments on Facebook: Bombay High Court Tells Tata’s Ex-Employee

No Foul Comments on Facebook: Bombay High Court Tells Tata’s Ex-Employee

SHARE:

CA will be fined of Rs 10,000 for filing wrong information
Government needs to create level playing field for app-based taxi aggregators: MDI, Gurgaon
Sushma Swaraj Directed Orders to Keep an Eye on UAE Fire Blast

Now, think twice before spilling anything wrong or incorrect about any company online. In a recent case between the Tata Group and its former general manager, the Tata group won the initial round of legal battle.

The case was filed by the company when the ex-employee posted defaming information about his employer on the social media. The Tata group’s case was represented by advocate Tushar Cooper and law firm India Law
.
In its verdict, the Bombay High Court not only imposed a gag order on the ex-worker, but also asked him to remove all the remarks defaming the company or its working employees. Sinha had posted remarks about the unethical behavior of the company and how it was trying to fool its customers.
The posts were made by a former HL Homes general manager Nityanand Sinha. The justice of the case Gautam Patel ceased Sinha from making any derogatory statements against the “then directors, principal officers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, clients, business associates, business partners, companies forming a part of the Tata group of companies”.

The court even directed Sinha not to make any remarks related to anyone through any social media networks, print or electronic media, websites, journalists or any clients of the company.

Sinha was working as the general manager of a realty venture New Haven in Haryana before he was asked to quit in June this year. The reason behind his termination was unsatisfactory services
.
As quoted by TOI, the judge in his verdict against Sinha stated, “This is no sense journalism or fair reportage. The plaintiffs are not a public body to be held to have to prove a high standard of actual malice. I do not see how it is possible to conclude that the defendant’s posts meet a good faith standard or can be said to have been made in the reasonable belief of their truth. They appear, prima facie, to be allegations leveled only to further a private agenda and a vendetta of some kind.”




COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 0