Mumbai, February 13 The Bombay High Court has restrained actor-producer Vidnyan Mane from making defamatory remarks against composer Palash Muchhal, noting his comments regarding an incident that occurred before the latter's scheduled wedding to cricketer Smriti Mandhana were "insinuating and defamatory".
In a recent interview, Mane had commented on an incident that allegedly occurred a day before the wedding, which ultimately led to the nuptials being called off.
A bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, in its February 11 order, noted that Mane's comments were "prima facie insinuating and per se defamatory".
A copy of the order was made available on Friday.
Mane, a resident of Sangli, had approached the police last month with a complaint alleging that Muchhal had cheated him of Rs 40 lakh by making him invest in a film project that did not take off, and didn't return the money.
Muchhal has filed a lawsuit against Mane seeking damages and a permanent injunction for making defamatory statements against him and his family.
"The defendant (Mane) is restrained from making any further references and insinuations of the kind and nature attacking the plaintiff (Muchhal) and his mother, which are made in the said interviews, which are prima facie defamatory," the court said.
Muchhal's advocates Siddesh Bhole and Shreyansh Mitare had submitted to the court that there was a commercial dispute between the parties.
They added that Mane's comments in the interview refer to an incident that is alleged to have occurred on November 23, 2025 (the day Muchhal and Mandhana were to marry).
Such comments have harmed not just Muchhal's reputation but also that of his family members, the advocates said.
Justice Jadhav noted that, in his opinion, prima facie, the incident, which took place ahead of the wedding, was not relevant, especially when there is a commercial dispute between Muchhal and Mane.
After perusing the interview transcripts, the court noted that the comments were "prima facie insinuating and per se defamatory".
"There is direct insinuation of the family of the plaintiff (Muchhal)," HC said.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on March 11.