WSJ publishes Indiabulls report after court win

Article written by Geeta Anand chronicles ordeal of Veritas analyst Nitin Mangal who wrote a critical report of group

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has published an article on the Indiabulls group and its legal disputes with Canadian research organisation Veritas, following the Delhi High Court disposing of proceedings initiated against its publication. The court website showed cases between Indiabulls entities, Dow Jones and WSJ journalist Geeta Anand had been disposed of on September 7.

This is the second major victory courts have handed to media organisations and 'freedom of press' within a week. On September 9, the Bombay High Court dismissed a notice of motion moved by the National Stock Exchange against Mumbai-based magazine Moneylife. A Dow Jones spokesperson said, "We are pleased that we were able to publish this important article after a lengthy court battle. We think this serves the interests of readers around the world and the cause of freedom of the press."

Anand declined to comment.

In an order on September 7, the court said, "We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel agreed the order, dated April 16 and passed by the single judge, be modified to the extent the appellant would be free to publish the article subject to their complying with the norms of journalistic conduct."

The court directed Indiabulls to respond to questions sent by Anand. "A questionnaire has been sent by Geeta Anand to respondent no.1 in these appeals through emails dated April 14 and July 27. It has been agreed that the respondent no.1 in these appeals shall give response to Geeta Anand on or before 10 am (IST) on September 14. In view of the above order, the appeals stand disposed of."

Following this, WSJ published the article, A Negative Stock Report About Indiabulls Led to an Analyst's Arrest and a 2,000-Mile Odyssey, on Tuesday. The article chronicles the ordeals of Nitin Mangal, who had contributed to a critical stock report by Veritas on the group in 2012.

The WSJ article quoted Indore-based Mangal saying, "I feared for my life. I did not know what they would do to me." He recalled how he was taken on a long road trip by the police, allegedly accompanied by an Indiabulls lawyer named Ajay Grewal. Among other things, Mangal told WSJ he was asked to sign an affidavit blaming Veritas, in return for which was he was offered a job and dropping of charges against him, the report stated.

In response to an email seeking comment from Gagan Banga, chief executive of Indiabulls, a company executive sent a detailed note of various legal proceedings between Indiabulls, Veritas and Mangal in India and Canada.

The note alleged Mangal's assertion against Grewal was an afterthought, as this wasn't made in his bail application and other suits filed in 2014 and 2015. It alleged Mangal had shown scant regard for the Indian judiciary in giving comments to WSJ and hinted at contempt proceedings against Mangal.

It said the Delhi High Court order of April 16 restrained Veritas, Neeraj Monga and Nitin Mangal from publishing, disseminating and broadcasting reports pertaining to and arising out of the Veritas report dated August 1, 2012, in any manner. "Nitin Mangal has clearly flouted the order of the Delhi High Court by providing commentary, making statements and posing for pictures for the WSJ article dated September 15. It is a clear case of contempt of the orders the Delhi High Court and the company will press for fresh charges of contempt of court in this regard," said a note by an Indiabulls executive.

The WSJ report termed the case of Mangal "a cautionary tale" for foreign investors "who are weighing how much to wager on the ability of the country's new prime minister, Narendra Modi, to drive a growth spurt by cutting red tape, increasing transparency and streamlining taxes". Mangal's lawyer declined to comment, saying he was not party to this proceeding.

Detailing its legal battle with the group, the WSJ article said: "In April, the Delhi High Court granted Indiabulls an injunction against Dow Jones & Co, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, restraining it from publishing an article on Mangal's research report. The injunction came after the journal had approached the company in April about the article and was granted on the grounds that, among other things, it was 'likely to prejudice and hamper the course of investigation and judicial process'. The journal fought the injunction and the bar on publication was lifted on Monday."