Additional sessions judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan set aside the trial court’s 19 May order dismissing the complaint and directed the lower court to proceed with summoning Modi.

“Considering the aforesaid appreciation of the facts and circumstances of this case and also the case laws, the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned trial court stands set aside. The present revision petition stands allowed… the trial court is directed to summon the accused/respondent and proceed further as per law,” the court said in its order, a copy of which was seen by Mint.

Boardroom clash

The dispute stems from a boardroom clash at GPI in May 2024, during which Modi alleged he was assaulted. Independent directors Atul Kumar Gupta and Nirmala Bagri accuse him of defaming them by publicly claiming they had consented to the alleged assault. The other independent directors are Lalit Bhasin, Ajay Vohra, Avtar Singh Monga, Sumant Bharadwaj, and Subramanian Lakshminarayanan.

Modi, the youngest of three children of the late business tycoon K.K. Modi—and brother to former IPL chief Lalit Modi and sister Charu Modi—was removed from the board on 7 August 2024. GPI is a key player in India’s tobacco market and partners with Marlboro-maker Philip Morris.

Lalit Samir have differed with mother Bina Modi, who heads the board of Godfrey Phillips.

Samir was removed from the board of the company last year while Bina Modi was re-elected as the chairman and managing director of the company.

Samir had accused the board members of colluding to arrange an assault on him as he was trying to attend a key board meeting in May last year.

Defamation case

According to the complaint, the events unfolded on 30 May 2024 when an audit committee meeting was underway ahead of a scheduled board meeting. Modi, then an executive director but not a member of the committee, allegedly got into a heated argument with a security officer outside the meeting room.

To avoid disruption, senior board members invited him in, where he allegedly shouted angrily and banged folders on the table. Despite the incident, the meeting concluded, and Modi later participated in the board meeting without signs of injury.

Later On 1 June 2024, The Economic Times published an interview in which Modi alleged that the complainants and other board members orchestrated a “planned attack” to stop him from attending the meeting.

The directors deny the charge, citing CCTV footage showing Modi as the aggressor, and claim the remarks were false, scandalous, and intended to damage their reputations.

They say that Smir Modi’s statements created a false impression that they condoned or arranged an assault, causing them social, professional, and reputational harm prompting them to approach the court.

The defamation complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in November 2024.

The trial court dismissed it in May 2025, prompting the directors to seek revision before the sessions court.

Sessions Court’s Findings

The sessions court  noted that the Economic Times interview contained allegations harmful to the complainants, who were easily identifiable as public figures and board members of a well-known company.

The complainants had submitted the article with a Section 65B certificate and named the reporter as a witness. The court further observed that defamation can be directed at identifiable groups, such as a company’s board members. It ruled that the trial court had erred by assuming the existence of other litigation was sufficient grounds for dismissal and by denying the complainants the opportunity to present their witnesses.

Section 65B allows electronic records—such as emails, scanned copies, or web pages—to be accepted as evidence in court, provided they come with a certificate confirming their authenticity and how they were produced.