Lulu Group has reaffirmed that it will pursue defamation proceedings against people accused of making false allegations about the company and chairman M. A. Yusuff Ali, regardless of public apologies or offers to settle.
V. Nandakumar, the UAE-based group’s director of global marketing and communications, said the company would not withdraw the cases or accept an out-of-court settlement. He said Lulu had confidence in India’s judicial system and intended to use the legal remedies available to it.
The proceedings involve courts in Delhi, Lucknow and Kerala, where the company says it has challenged statements that damaged its reputation and that of its chairman. The refusal to compromise follows a public apology by Malayalam digital publisher Shajan Skariah over allegations made against Yusuff Ali.
Skariah, associated with the Malayalam online platform Marunadan Malayalee, issued a video apology on 31 October, acknowledging that earlier statements were incorrect and withdrawing them. Those statements concerned allegations made in a November 2020 video relating to a gold smuggling investigation involving the UAE Consulate in Thiruvananthapuram.
The apology did not establish the truth of the original allegations, and the company’s decision to continue litigation does not itself determine liability. The disputed statements and any legal responsibility arising from them remain matters for the courts.
Yusuff Ali has filed a defamation suit seeking Rs100 million, or Rs10 crore, in damages over alleged harm to his reputation. The amount represents the compensation sought, not an award made by a court. A separate defamation proceeding has also been filed before the Ernakulam Sub Court in Kerala.
The Delhi High Court previously ordered the editor of an online Malayalam news portal to remove material concerning Yusuff Ali that was the subject of the litigation. It also restrained further statements about him on online platforms. Those directions form part of the legal dispute and should not be confused with a final determination of every allegation raised in the proceedings.
Nandakumar said the apology was a matter for the person who issued it and would not change Lulu’s legal position. He rejected the suggestion that the litigation was intended to suppress criticism, saying the company distinguished between legitimate scrutiny and knowingly false accusations.
“This is not about silencing criticism. It is about protecting the truth,” he said, explaining why the group would continue to seek judicial remedies rather than resolve the dispute through an apology.
The company’s stated position leaves the courts to examine the disputed publications and decide whether the applicable legal standards for defamation have been met. An apology can be relevant to the circumstances of a dispute, but it does not automatically terminate proceedings brought by a complainant or claimant.
Lulu has not publicly specified a timetable for the resolution of the cases, and the different proceedings should not be treated as a single lawsuit. The company has also not announced any agreement with the individuals against whom it has taken action.
Nandakumar said online engagement incentives, including clicks, likes and shares, encouraged the circulation of accusations without sufficient regard for their consequences. That assessment reflects the company’s view of the material it is contesting rather than a judicial finding about the motives of every defendant.
The group maintains that it welcomes disagreement, questions about its decisions and fair criticism of its operations. Its objection, Nandakumar said, concerns material it considers deliberately fabricated or circulated to injure the standing of the business and its leadership.
The distinction is significant because the cases concern public statements made through digital media, where questions of reputation and expression can arise together. Whether particular remarks amount to actionable defamation depends on their content, context and the findings of the courts hearing the claims.
Nandakumar also pointed to the wider organisation affected by reputational disputes, saying Lulu employs more than 75,000 people. He described the company as a workplace built over decades and said its management regarded trust as important to employees as well as the chairman.
Skariah said in his apology that he had not intended to insult or defame Yusuff Ali personally. He withdrew the remarks he had made about the businessman, while Lulu maintained that the legal process would proceed independently of that statement in the pending proceedings.
Related Posts
Add A Comment