Evidence justifies allegations against Salman Khan: Mumbai Court

There is documentary evidence which proves claims made against Bollywood actor Salman Khan relating to illegal encroachment and violation of the Forest Act, the Mumbai City Civil Court observed while denying Khan interim relief [Salman S. Khan vs Ketan Kakkad & Ors.].The adverse observations were part of the 50-page reasoned order by Additional Sessions Judge AH Laddhad rejecting Khan's application for interim relief seeking for blocking/ suspending one Ketan Kakkad's social media accounts where allegedly derogatory content against Khan was shared.The Court observed that Kakkad had placed on record documentary proof substantiating the allegations against Khan restraining him from approaching his land. To substantiate the allegations that Khan had committed encroachment and violated the Forest Act and Matheran Eco Sensitive notification, Kakkad placed applications which had been made to the concerned forest department and the Collector along with the annexures and show cause notices issued by the forest department, the order recorded. "The defendant (Kakkad) contended that, he is a whistleblower to the illegal acts done by the plaintiff (Khan) and he made imputations in public interest by taking reasonable precautions by producing documentary material in support of the same. Therefore, at preliminary stage, I find the defendant's plea of justification is more probable than the prima facie case of the plaintiff," the judge reasoned. With these observations, the Court concluded that no case had been made out for interim relief in favour of Khan, and hence the application was rejected. "As the plaintiff (Khan) failed to explain innuendo how it relates to him and the defendant (Kakkad) raised the plea of justification which is prima facie supported by documentary evidence, therefore... I am not inclined to grant injunction," the order stated. .Khan had filed the present defamation suit before the Mumbai City Civil Court against Kakkad, a Non Resident Indian (NRI) and others for allegedly making derogatory remarks against him and his family over a land sale transaction.The plea pointed out that Kakkad had attempted to purchase a plot of land beside Khan’s farmhouse in Panvel; however that transaction was cancelled by the authorities on the ground that it was illegal.However, after the said transaction was cancelled, Kakkad started raising false and baseless accusations that the transaction had been cancelled at the behest of Khan and his family members.In the recent past, Khan’s team came across several videos in relation to Khan’s farmhouse in Panvel uploaded on the social media accounts of the defendants.Aggrieved by the same, Khan filed the present suit.Kakkad's defence was that Khan had blocked his land by an iron gate and he had not been able to rightfully access it since 2014, when he permanently moved back to India from the United States of America. He claimed that Khan would invite him to his farmhouse and exchange pleasantries, and in turn use his land for fishing and jogging. However, all of this changed after Kakkad shifted back to India. Judge Laddhad said that what would be relevant at this juncture was whether Kakkad prima facie made out a defence for justification and pleadings according to law. Going through Kakkad's submissions, the Court concluded that Kakkad did produce specific material to support his defence. The Court, therefore, denied interim relief to Khan..Khan was represented by advocate Pradeep Gandhy briefed by team from DSK Legal comprising Managing Partner Anand Desai and partners Chandrima Mitra and Parag Khandhar, along with principal associate Prachi Garg.Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap Singh represented Ketan Kakkad.[Read Order]