Delhi court summons Samir Modi in defamation case by GPI directors

A Delhi Sessions Court has set aside a trial court order and summoned Samir Modi in a defamation case filed by Godfrey Phillips directors Nirmala Bagri and Atul Kumar Gupta

A Sessions Court in Delhi on Thursday summoned Samir Modi in defamation proceedings filed against him by independent directors of Godfrey Phillips India (GPI), Nirmala Bagri and Atul Kumar Gupta.

 

The court held that there was, prima facie, “sufficient evidence” to summon Samir Modi, and directed the trial court to proceed as per law in the defamation case.

 

Bagri and Gupta had initiated defamation proceedings against Samir Modi, alleging that his statements to the media had damaged their reputations.

 

The trial court had rejected the defamation plea on 19 May, after which the directors filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court. On Thursday, the Sessions Court set aside the trial court’s order and summoned Samir Modi.

 

 

In May 2024, Samir Modi had alleged that his mother, Bina Modi, and other directors of GPI had “orchestrated an attack” on him during a board meeting.

 

He had also alleged that he was assaulted by the personal security officer (PSO) of his mother, who is the chairperson and managing director of the company.

 

Samir Modi was removed from GPI’s board at a meeting on 7 August last year after fellow directors did not support his reappointment. In his place, the company appointed Charu Modi, daughter of Bina Modi and sister to Samir and Lalit Modi.

 

The younger son of KK Modi and Bina Modi lodged a first information report (FIR) with Delhi Police on 27 June 2024, accusing his mother, her PSO, and GPI directors of causing him “grievous hurt”.

 

The dispute comes against the backdrop of a contentious succession battle over an estimated Rs 11,000-crore inheritance following the death of family patriarch KK Modi in 2019.

 

Samir Modi, one of KK Modi’s three children and brother of former Indian Premier League (IPL) chief Lalit Modi, has challenged his mother’s management of the family’s affairs in the Supreme Court.