In a sharp rebuke to the allegations aired against Euro Exim Bank, a Hyderabad City Civil Court has held that the respondents failed to produce any material to substantiate serious imputations, including claims that the bank’s guarantees were “fraudulent” and that it was involved in a “mega scam.”

The court observed that the respondents did not furnish documentary evidence, verifiable material, or even disclose sources for several of the claims repeatedly telecast. It noted that such allegations, lacking substantiation, could not form the basis of public accusations against a financial institution.

One of the key issues examined was the claim regarding the bank’s net worth. The respondents had alleged that Euro Exim Bank’s net worth was around ₹8 crore. However, the court recorded that no supporting document was produced to justify this assertion, nor was the source of the information disclosed. In contrast, the bank placed its financial statement on record to rebut the claim, while maintaining that its audited FY24 net worth exceeded ₹1,900 crore.

The court went further, stating that the respondents had not produced “any scrap of paper” to support allegations that the bank was issuing guarantees illegally, engaging in hawala transactions, or violating RBI and FEMA regulations. It also noted the absence of any material indicating that criminal proceedings had been initiated against the bank on these grounds.

On this basis, the court held that there was no prima facie evidence to conclude that the guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank were fraudulent. It ruled that the bank had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Continued telecast of unverified allegations, the court said, would cause irreparable harm to the bank’s reputation and business.

Accordingly, the court restrained the primary respondent from airing imputations against the bank without authenticity, supporting evidence, or verifiable material. It also barred the use of defamatory or derogatory titles in such broadcasts.

Importantly, the court directed that any future publication or telecast on the matter must clearly disclose—through both audio and visual means—that the dispute is sub judice in O.S. No. 413/2024.

The ruling reinforces a broader principle: while journalism is protected, it must be grounded in verification and responsibility. Reckless or unsubstantiated reporting, the court indicated, cannot claim such protection.

The case follows a similar development in March 2025, when the Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL filed by Ravi Prakash on related allegations, citing suppression of facts and lack of bona fides.

The Hyderabad order underscores a clear message—serious financial allegations must be backed by credible evidence, failing which the law will intervene to prevent reputational damage.