<p class="MsoSubtitle"><span lang="EN-US">Court restraints, allegations of repeated
publication and fresh procedural complaints raise wider questions about
reputation, commercial rivalry and security for business leaders in the AI age.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Ankiti Bose and Krishan Rattan are
high-profile entrepreneurs and investors with substantial international
business track records. Bose co-founded an Asian e-commerce platform that <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/27-year-old-set-to-become-first-indian-female-ceo-of-unicorn/articleshow/67968546.cms"><span style="color: black;">2019 reporting
valued at about US$970 million</span></a>, and now serves as co-founder of
Terra-Invest and chairperson of an AI-powered healthcare and longevity group.
She also works closely with governments on AI adoption across India and the
Middle East. Rattan has held senior global banking roles; his <a href="https://terra-invest.com/team/"><span style="color: black;">published professional biography</span></a> credits
him with raising, deploying and overseeing more than US$12 billion in career
transactions and establishing an alternative asset manager with over US$1.2
billion in assets under management. A Berkeley-trained financial engineer,
Rattan's biography also lists service on a steering committee at the University
of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Their dispute centres on Delhi-based
Inventiva founder Nitin Naresh, whose publications have already prompted
repeated court intervention in proceedings involving OYO and BPTP. Bose and
Rattan's cases add further interim restraints and applications alleging
breaches of court orders. Alongside those civil proceedings, they have lodged
complaints alleging blackmail and attempted extortion through threatened
reputational harm. Those complaints raise the allegation that publication
pressure was used as financial leverage, a claim that remains for the
authorities to investigate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">According to the founders' tally, the
alleged campaign comprises a series of 73 publications and related pieces of
content concerning them, Terra Invest and their professional network. They say
the significance lies in both the volume and the sequence: judicial restraints,
further publications, applications seeking enforcement and fresh complaints
that can themselves become the basis for new coverage.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Nitin Naresh faced repeated court intervention over OYO
and BPTP publications<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Nitin Naresh and Inventiva's publisher had
already faced court intervention over publications concerning other prominent
businesses before the Terra Invest litigation. Delhi High Court orders in
proceedings brought by Oravel Stays, the company behind OYO, and real estate
developer BPTP document earlier takedown directions, undertakings and
restrictions on dissemination. The OYO record also contains an express judicial
observation that articles were published despite knowledge of an interim order,
followed by directions requiring compliance.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In Oravel Stays Limited v. Nine Network
Private Limited & Ors., CS(OS) 627/2022, Justice Mini Pushkarna's order of
November 14, 2022, addressed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A alleging
breach of an October 14 injunction. The application expressly sought action
against Naresh and another individual. The order records an unconditional
apology tendered by defence counsel and the court's observation that articles
had nevertheless been published despite knowledge of the interim order, without
seeking clarification or permission. The court rejected the explanation that
earlier articles had merely been reproduced without obtaining such permission.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The OYO order directed removal of three
subsequent articles within 48 hours and recorded an undertaking that the
defendants would not write to the company's investors. It expressly reserved
the question of whether the articles were defamatory for determination after
hearing both sides. The order therefore provides a concrete precedent for court
intervention over publication after an injunction, rather than a final criminal
conviction or a final determination of defamation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The BPTP litigation adds another documented
example. In BPTP Limited v. Nitin Naresh & Ors., CS(OS) 297/2026, the April
7, 2026 order records BPTP's allegation that a damaging publication campaign
followed an unanswered offer of legal services. BPTP's counsel expressly cited
the earlier OYO proceedings in alleging a similar method. Naresh disputed that
account and maintained that his reporting was fair comment. The court held him
to his undertaking not to disseminate the disputed articles on other social media
platforms and directed that reporting of future incidents must remain fair.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On September 3, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao
Gedela went further in the BPTP case. After reviewing articles, the court
questioned language portraying the company as involved in criminal activity
without a corresponding judicial declaration. It also criticised an image
depicting a director as arrested and behind bars; Naresh stated that it would
be removed within 24 hours. The court directed that articles on Inventiva's
website should not, for the time being, be further disseminated or republished,
reiterated the requirement of fair reporting and referred the parties to
mediation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The OYO, BPTP and Terra Invest proceedings
therefore form a documented history of judicial intervention involving Naresh
and the publishing platform across multiple corporate publication disputes. The
earlier orders identify concrete obligations: remove specified articles,
refrain from contacting investors, restrict dissemination and comply with
directions governing fair reporting. This history provides context for the
present enforcement applications, which ask the courts to determine whether the
later publications breached the restraints obtained by Bose and Rattan.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">High-profile founders and reputational pressure<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As high-profile entrepreneurs and
investors, Bose and Rattan illustrate why HNIs and business leaders can be
particularly exposed to this form of alleged coercion. Their names are closely
associated with their businesses, and confidence among investors, banking
partners and commercial counterparties is central to their professional
standing. Public visibility supplies an attacker with recognisable names and a
ready audience, while perceived wealth can create an assumption that the target
has both the means and an incentive to pay to make a controversy disappear. In
such circumstances, threatened reputational damage can become a source of
pressure: the consequences may extend beyond personal embarrassment to business
relationships and investment opportunities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The court orders and applications establish
a procedural chronology. They do not establish criminal guilt, a final finding
of contempt or a conspiracy. Naresh and the other defendants are entitled to
contest the allegations. The founders' broader argument is that repeated
publication can create a corporate security problem long before the underlying
disputes are finally adjudicated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Multiple court restraints and applications alleging breach<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bose's proceedings began in the District
Court at Dwarka. As recorded in the subsequent Delhi High Court papers, the
District Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction on June 8, 2026,
directing removal of the disputed article and restraining further defamatory
publications. Bose's later application states that an enforcement application
under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on June 18
and remained pending.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On August 24, the Delhi High Court
intervened in Bose's separate suit, CS(OS) 756/2026. Justice Subramonium Prasad
held that identified articles commenting on her exercise of legal rights had
the effect of deliberately portraying her negatively and could hamper the court
proceedings. The court restrained Defendants 1 to 5 from disseminating those
articles through LinkedIn or other social media accounts. It also restrained
further articles that would have the effect of preventing Bose from exercising
her legal rights.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Rattan subsequently obtained separate
interim protection in CS(OS) 815/2026. On September 14, Justice Sachin Datta
restrained Defendants 1 to 5 from publishing further articles containing
defamatory imputations against him. The order expressly preserved their ability
to continue fact-finding concerning the allegations. The restraint was issued
on the basis of the prima facie case and balance of convenience at that stage.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That qualification matters to the dispute.
The order allowed investigation to continue while imposing a restraint on
defamatory publication. It did not resolve the suit finally or prohibit all
reporting concerning Rattan.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The September 14 order records Naresh's
personal appearance and acceptance of summons for himself and Defendants 2 to
5, with authorisation to be filed. His knowledge of the restraint is therefore
a central feature of Rattan's subsequent enforcement application.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Fresh publication bursts form the basis of the enforcement
claims<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Rattan's application under Order XXXIX Rule
2A alleges that 19 fresh articles appeared on September 17, three days after
the interim order. It states that 12 specifically named, concerned or targeted
him, while the wider group also concerned Bose and Terra Invest adviser
Shailesh Haribhakti.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bose's separate High Court application,
dated September 18, describes around 17 fresh articles within a short period,
13 of them specifically naming or targeting her. It alleges wilful disobedience
of the August 24 order and characterises the September publications as
breaching two subsisting High Court orders obtained by the two founders.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Those counts describe the respective
applications and should not be added together as though they necessarily
concern separate sets of articles. The founders' overall figure of 73 remains
their tally of the wider campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The applications seek judicial action over
alleged disobedience. They are not final findings that contempt occurred. Their
significance is that the dispute now concerns enforcement across both the
earlier District Court litigation and the separate High Court suits, rather
than objections to a single publication.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Blackmail allegations and the question of coordination<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bose and Rattan say they have also lodged
complaints alleging blackmail, attempted extortion, intimidation and
harassment. They allege that threatened reputational harm was used to exert
pressure on them. These criminal allegations are separate from the applications
seeking enforcement of the civil court orders, and remain for the appropriate
authorities to examine.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The founders have also asked authorities to
determine whether anyone else encouraged, commissioned, financed or coordinated
the alleged campaign. They say the investigation should consider whether the
visible publishing activity was self-directed or involved intermediaries acting
for others.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Fresh complaints and the creation of new headlines<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A further document dated October 1, 2026,
addressed to the Station House Officer at Tilak Marg police station and bearing
a receipt stamp, shows Naresh seeking registration of an FIR concerning alleged
fabrication of a notarial attestation and unauthorised use of an electronic
signature on documents filed in Rattan's Delhi High Court suit. The complaint
names Rattan as a proposed accused. The document is a complaint requesting
investigation, not proof that an FIR was registered or that its allegations are
true.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bose and Rattan reject the allegations and
describe the fresh complaints and procedural applications as spurious and
retaliatory. They allege that such steps are intended to harass them and create
further material for negative coverage, including allegations framed around
perjury, electronic signatures and notarisation. That description represents
their position, rather than a judicial finding about Naresh's motives.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The founders maintain that their electronic
execution and filing processes were lawful. Their objection has a specific
judicial foundation: the Delhi High Court accepted electronically signed and
remotely notarised documents in 2024. On February 6, in Srinath Kumbargeri
Venkatachalappa v. C.A. Shivaram & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 13/2024 and
connected matters, Justice Sanjeev Narula considered applications involving a
constituted attorney based in Dubai. The attorney appeared virtually before a
qualified notary in Delhi through NotarEase and digitally signed affidavits and
a vakalatnama. The applications described the procedure and included video-call
screenshots, an eMudhra completion certificate and document logs. Having
considered that material, the court allowed the applications seeking permission
to file the electronically signed and notarised documents.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On May 29, 2024, in Singh and Singh Law
Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh and Singh Attorneys & Ors., CS(COMM) 466/2024,
Justice Narula again accepted electronically signed and notarised affidavits
after considering virtual appearance before a qualified notary and the
supporting digital records. These orders show that remote notarisation is a
process the Delhi High Court has permitted on the facts presented, including
where a signatory was overseas. Indian law also recognises prescribed
electronic signatures, as reflected in the Controller of Certifying
Authorities' guidance on compliant eSign services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Against that background, Bose and Rattan
argue that portraying online signing or absence from India as inherently
unlawful disregards the court's documented acceptance of remote notarisation.
This is the basis on which they describe the complaint as spurious and intended
to create further adverse publicity. The 2024 orders do not automatically
validate every later document or resolve a specific allegation of unauthorised
signing or fabricated attestation. They do, however, undermine any suggestion
that virtual appearance before a notary, by itself, establishes forgery or
perjury. The validity of the particular documents in dispute remains for the
appropriate court or authority to assess.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The founders' concern is that a fresh
complaint can become a fresh headline before its merits are tested. A
procedural objection may produce another searchable allegation, which is then
repeated as a new development. They allege that this creates a way to sustain
the controversy despite earlier restraints. Whether any particular filing is
abusive, and whether its publication breaches an existing order, remain
questions for adjudication.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Reputation and security in the AI age<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The wider issue extends beyond this
dispute. High-net-worth individuals, family offices, entrepreneurs and
corporate boards may need to think about security in terms of the information
circulating about them, alongside the protection of homes, offices, accounts
and confidential data.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Generative AI can assist with drafting,
translation and repackaging of material. Used maliciously, these capabilities
could help a small operation produce large amounts of content around a target.
Repeated allegations can then circulate through publishers, social accounts,
aggregators and search results. An AI system retrieving several versions of the
same allegation may fail to make clear that they share a common source.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This is a broader risk analysis, not
evidence that Naresh's publications were generated by AI. The court documents
establish the publications complained of and the legal steps taken in response;
they do not establish the use of automated content production.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For a business leader, the practical
concern is how repetition influences decisions. A lender, prospective investor
or commercial partner may encounter dozens of links without knowing whether
they reflect independent reporting, derivative content or disputed allegations
from the same source. Volume can create an impression of corroboration that the
underlying evidence does not justify.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The content often dismissed as AI slop
becomes more consequential when it affects access to capital, business
relationships or a person's professional standing. A reputational attack need
not involve theft of information. It may involve the repeated creation of
misleading information about the target.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1><span lang="EN-US">Can commercial adversaries act through intermediaries<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The founders' request to examine wider
coordination also points to a potential corporate threat: a hostile commercial
actor could work through intermediaries rather than appear publicly.
Publishers, complainants or content operators could be supplied with selective
allegations, while the party commissioning the activity remains out of view.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That possibility should not be treated as
an established explanation for this case. It does explain why attribution
matters. Identifying the author of an article and identifying any person who
instructed or financed a campaign are different tasks. The founders want
authorities to investigate both, if the evidence warrants it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For HNIs and businesses, a proportionate
response would bring legal, communications and cybersecurity teams together
when unusual publication patterns emerge. Preserving evidence, distinguishing
independent sources from copies, tracking subsequent legal outcomes and
recording the effects on business relationships can help establish what
happened and support a timely response.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h1 style="page-break-before:always"><span lang="EN-US">The digital record must
reflect legal developments<o:p></o:p></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Rattan's September 14 order provides a
concrete example of why chronology matters. It records his reliance on an
August 5 consent order in the Voltaire proceedings, under which proceedings
against him were discontinued without an adverse finding of fraud, dishonesty
or wrongdoing. A discontinuance by consent is not a merits judgment, but it is
a material procedural development that should be reflected accurately in
subsequent reporting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When earlier allegations remain easy to
retrieve while later orders are less visible, the digital record can become
distorted. Search and AI summaries should distinguish allegations, interim
decisions, settlements, discontinuances and final findings rather than compress
them into an apparently settled account.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Independent journalism and scrutiny of
business leaders remain essential. The September 14 order itself preserved
fact-finding. The issues raised by the founders concern alleged coercion,
alleged non-compliance with judicial restraints and the use of successive
publications and complaints to sustain reputational pressure.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For Bose and Rattan, the immediate
questions remain legal and evidential: whether the court orders were breached,
whether the criminal allegations are substantiated, and whether anyone else
participated in the alleged campaign. For the wider business community, the
73-publication tally raises a further concern: how to respond when the
circulation of accusations outpaces the resolution of the disputes behind them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
from
www.sikkimexpress.com
https://ift.tt/gEo875w
via IFTTT
The Menu of this blog is loading..........
0 Comments