The Bombay High Court has restrained actor-producer Vidnyan Mane from making defamatory remarks against composer Palaash Muchhal, observing that his comments regarding an incident that occurred before the latter’s scheduled wedding to cricketer Smriti Mandhana were “insinuating and defamatory”.

A bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, in an order dated February 11, said Mane’s statements in a recent interview were “prima facie insinuating and per se defamatory”. A copy of the order was made available on Friday.

In the interview, Mane had referred to an incident that allegedly took place a day before Muchhal’s wedding, which was scheduled for November 23, 2025, and was later called off.

Mane, a resident of Sangli, had approached the police last month alleging that Muchhal had cheated him of Rs 40 lakh by inducing him to invest in a film project that did not materialise and failing to return the money.

Muchhal has since filed a civil suit against Mane seeking damages and a permanent injunction restraining him from making defamatory statements against him and his family.

“The defendant (Mane) is restrained from making any further references and insinuations of the kind and nature attacking the plaintiff (Muchhal) and his mother, which are made in the said interviews, which are prima facie defamatory,” the court said.

Appearing for Muchhal, advocates Siddesh Bhole and Shreyansh Mitare submitted that the dispute between the parties was commercial in nature. They argued that Mane’s comments about the alleged incident on November 23, 2025 — the day Muchhal and Mandhana were to marry — were unrelated to the financial dispute.

The remarks, they contended, had harmed not only Muchhal’s reputation but also that of his family members.

Justice Jadhav noted that, prima facie, the alleged incident preceding the wedding was not relevant in the context of a commercial dispute between the parties.

After perusing the interview transcripts, the court observed that the statements were “prima facie insinuating and per se defamatory”. “There is direct insinuation of the family of the plaintiff (Muchhal),” the High Court said.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 11.