An Injunction That Contradicted The Findings It Was Built On
A trial court restrained emails to vague 'third parties' and barred 'illegal allegations' — while saying in the same breath that it could not tell whether the allegations were genuine.
The Court held the trial judge erred in law in misconstruing the parameters for granting an injunction in defamation suits. He granted it without touching on the Bonnard Principle or recording satisfaction about it, and the operative part contradicts the findings leading to it. Being unsure of the legality of the allegations, he could not have concluded they were certain to fail. The order was set aside.
- The Bonnard Principle is the gateway — an injunction needs satisfaction that the defence is certain to fail.
- He recorded the opposite, that no conclusion on genuineness was possible before trial.
- ‘Third parties not directly involved’ was left vague and dependent on the parties' own perception.
- The emails questioned corporate conduct and had the character of a legal notice, addressed to people connected with the company.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE
- Citation
- FMAT No. 220 of 2026
- Case
- FMAT No. 220 of 2026
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; injunction order set aside
What the injunction said
The trial judge restrained the defendants from sending any email to ‘third parties’ who are not ‘directly involved’ with the concerned business, and from ‘raising illegal allegations’.
In the same order he recorded that it is not possible for the court to come to any conclusion as to whether the allegations made by the defendants are genuine, before the conclusion of the trial.
Why that could not stand
The injunction was granted without at all touching upon the Bonnard Principle, or recording satisfaction in that regard.
The expressions used left it vague, and dependent on the parties' own perception, who the third parties not directly involved with the business are. The order also restrains the raising of illegal allegations while observing in the same breath that their legality cannot be ascertained at this stage.
The operative part of the order and the findings leading to it are therefore contradictory. Since the court itself was unsure about the legality of the allegations in the offending emails, there was no possibility of concluding that those allegations were certain to fail — not only at the trial of the defamation suit, but in the pending or impending corporate proceedings against the plaintiff.
What the emails were
The emails questioned the propriety and legality of the plaintiff's actions in the context of corporate law, acquiring the character of a legal notice.
The appellants' position was that the addressees were all in some way connected with the company concerned. Neither the plaint nor the injunction application disclosed what the capacities of any unconnected persons were, nor identified which addressees were unconnected.
The Court made clear that its observations are tentative, made for the limited purpose of deciding an appeal from a temporary injunction, and will not influence the trial judge deciding the suit.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
When can a court stop allegedly defamatory statements before trial?
Only where it is satisfied the defence is certain to fail — the Bonnard Principle. Here the judge said he could not tell.
Can an injunction bar emails to unnamed third parties?
Not in vague terms. The Court held such expressions leave the order dependent on the parties' perception.
Resisting an injunction in a defamation suit
- Put the Bonnard Principle at the front; without a finding on it the order is vulnerable.
- Point to any statement by the court that it cannot assess the truth of the allegations — that defeats the injunction.
- Attack vagueness: an order the parties must interpret for themselves is not enforceable.
- Show who the recipients actually were; an email to people connected with the company is not publication at large.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, FMAT No. 220 of 2026, decided 7 September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in