- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Salman Khan demands detector KRK's detention over continued defamatory remarks
Salman Khan demands detector KRK's detention over continued defamatory remarks Kamaal R Khan had informed a Court that he won't make any defamatory remarks till the next date of hearing The fight between two Khans is getting murkier by the day with Hindi film superstar Salman Khan seeking contempt action against his detractor Kamaal R Khan (KRK) for his continued defamatory remarks...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Salman Khan demands detector KRK's detention over continued defamatory remarks
Kamaal R Khan had informed a Court that he won't make any defamatory remarks till the next date of hearing
The fight between two Khans is getting murkier by the day with Hindi film superstar Salman Khan seeking contempt action against his detractor Kamaal R Khan (KRK) for his continued defamatory remarks against him despite giving an undertaking before that Bombay City Civil Court that until the next hearing he would desist from doing so.
The actor has also demanded KRK's detention for the offence.
KRK, through his lawyer Manoj Gadkari, had stated that no defamatory remarks will be made till the next date of hearing during the last hearing in the matter.
Salman Khan had filed a defamation suit against KRK seeking restriction on him from directly or indirectly making and uploading videos or other content on Salman Khan, his business ventures and their films/projects, including the latest film Radhe.
Salman Khan in his application has stated that contrary to his undertaking in the court, KRK has continued to publish scornful tweets against him. He has alleged in the application that the reason KRK continued making defamatory remarks because he wants to earn money from his social media accounts at the cost of defiance of the court's orders.
Advocate Pradeep Gandhy, appearing for Salman Khan, partly argued the application before Additional Sessions Judge C.V. Marathe on 7 June. The hearing was adjourned till 11 June.
The application raised grievances against the alleged contemptuous tweets calling Khan a "career destroyer", "Gunda bhai", etc. Besides his Twitter handle, KRK also posted the same defamatory content against Khan on his YouTube and Instagram accounts.
The application has given several instances of KRK making frivolous allegations against him merely to malign Khan's reputation and defamed him.
The application states that in view of the published material, it was evident that KRK had "no regard whatsoever for the order and he was repeatedly, wilfully committing contempt by making defamatory remarks against Khan."
The alleged contemptuous remarks "tend to lower the authority, dignity and intellectual character of this Court before the masses at large" and also interfere with the proceedings before the Court, the application stated.
Salman Khan in his application has sought detention of KRK in civil prison as per provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure; ensure the personal presence of KRK either by issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants; to issue an instruction to KRK to forthwith withdraw and/or recall and/or take down all contemptuous content.
Salman Khan's Advocate Pradeep Gandhy was briefed by a DSK Legal team that comprised its Managing Partner Anand Desai, Partner Chandrima Mitra and Associate Partner Parag Khandhar.