Salman Khan sued neighbour for defamation but court says his comments are supported by ‘evidence’

It’s not the best news for Salman Khan, who has sued his Panvel neighbour for defamation. A civil court in Mumbai has said that ‘defamatory’ comments made by the neighbour–NRI Ketan Kakkad–are seemingly supported by ‘evidence’. The court added that Salman could also not prove that Ketan was speaking about the actor in the said ‘defamatory’ video interview that he has objected against. (Also read: Salman Khan says neighbour ‘bringing in religion’ to defame him: My brothers married Hindus, we celebrate all festivals)

The court last week refused interim relief to Salman in the case. Additional sessions judge Anil Laddhad rejected Salman’s plea seeking an interim order, barring Ketan from making any further comments against him or his family members in connection with Salman’s farmhouse at Panvel.

Ketan owns a plot on a hill next to Khan’s farmhouse. Salman’s advocate Pradeep Gandhy argued that Ketan made false, disparaging and defamatory allegations in videos, posts and tweets. Ketan had tried to purchase a plot of land next to Salman’s farmhouse, but the transaction was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that it was illegal, the lawyer told the court. He then started making false accusations that the transaction was cancelled at the behest of Khan and his family, Gandhy stated.

Ketan’s lawyers opposed the relief sought by Khan, arguing that the statements revolved around facts about Salman’s property and could not amount to defamation. Ketan had said in the interview that illegal activities were taking place at the farmhouse.

Ketan had purchased his land in 1996. He retired in 2014 and wanted to live there, but could not access his land due to encumbrances caused by Salman Khan and his family, the lawyers claimed. The judge, after examining the tweets and videos placed on record, said that Salman did not explain how the innuendos in the tweets pertained 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.

Salman, through his lawyers, had earlier accused his neighbour of trying to bring in his religion into the matter.

(With PTI inputs)