EXPLAINED | LuLu Won’t Settle. What’s Behind Yusuff Ali’s ₹10 Crore Defamation Suit?

A six-year-old YouTube video is back in the news. In October, Malayalam publisher Shajan Skariah reportedly took back remarks he had made about M.A. Yusuff Ali, the founder of Abu Dhabi-based LuLu Group. The video had linked Ali to the Kerala diplomatic baggage gold-smuggling case. LuLu says it will keep pursuing legal action, and the Delhi High Court has listed Ali’s ₹10 crore defamation suit for December 14. Court records show the two sides were still discussing a settlement in September, months after formal mediation had failed.

Why is LuLu pressing ahead?

LuLu says the disputed statements harmed the reputation of both Ali and the business. Its communications director, V. Nandakumar, publicly ruled out withdrawing the cases and told Khaleej Times, in remarks published on November 11, that the group would also reject an out-of-court settlement. Ali himself was asked about Skariah at a hypermarket opening in Dubai. He steered the conversation back to the business, Madhyamam reported on November 9.

What did Skariah take back?

Skariah runs Marunadan Malayalee, a Malayalam digital news outlet. In a video published on November 21, 2020, he made remarks linking Ali to the gold-smuggling case. Reporter TV and India Weekly reported that in an October 31 video, Skariah said his earlier remarks were incorrect, withdrew them and said he had meant no personal insult. Both outlets described it as an apology. Madhyamam reported that Skariah then disputed that description, saying he had not apologised to Ali and offering ₹1 crore to anyone who could prove he had.

What was the Kerala gold-smuggling case?

Customs seized about 30 kg of gold at Thiruvananthapuram airport on July 5, 2020. The gold had arrived in a consignment sent as diplomatic baggage from the UAE and addressed to an official at the UAE consulate. The National Investigation Agency later filed charges against 20 people. In the months after the seizure, videos began circulating about whether Ali had any connection to the case.

What did a Kerala court find about the alleged link to Ali?

It found that the magistrate had confused two emails. T.P. Nandakumar, editor of Crime Magazine, had asked a magistrate to order an investigation. He relied on documents filed by Swapna Suresh, an accused in the smuggling case, in support of her bail application. A June 2020 email that mentioned Ali concerned permission for a passenger to travel to the UAE. The July email asking Customs to send the consignment back was a separate communication.

The Kerala High Court set aside the magistrate’s investigation order on April 8, 2025. It held that the magistrate had wrongly proceeded on the basis that the bail papers contained a communication linking Ali and the other petitioner to the request to return the gold. That ruling dealt with the specific investigation order. Ali’s defamation suit in Delhi is a separate proceeding.

What does Ali want from the Delhi High Court?

Ali is asking for ₹10 crore in compensation. His suit also seeks a full-page apology and retraction in The Times of India, removal of disputed material and an account of what Skariah earned from it. Google, which owns YouTube, is a party because Ali is seeking orders affecting material hosted there. Skariah’s lawyer challenged the Delhi court’s jurisdiction when the case came up in May 2023.

Did the Delhi High Court order YouTube to take down the videos?

The court first gave Skariah 24 hours to remove specified posts on May 26, 2023. It also temporarily barred him from making further remarks about Ali. If he failed to remove the specified material, the order directed Google to take it down and suspend his channels until the next hearing. In September 2023, Ali’s lawyer alleged that the order had not been fully followed. The defence promised compliance within a week. The takedown order was temporary relief while the case was being heard. The court is yet to decide the ₹10 crore claim.

Are the Kerala and Lucknow cases part of the same suit?

They are separate proceedings. In Ernakulam, Ali and a co-plaintiff brought a civil suit in 2020 that sought ₹50 crore over allegedly defamatory videos. The Delhi court recorded that the Kerala suit included Skariah among several parties and that an injunction had been issued in April 2021. The Delhi order also records a separate complaint before a magistrate in Lucknow, where summons were issued in April 2023. LuLu says its cases remain active. Those records establish the filings and the orders at the time. The current schedules in Kerala and Lucknow remain unclear.

Why does this matter beyond LuLu?

The case shows how quickly a defamation dispute can affect what viewers can see. A court can order material taken down before it decides whether the publisher owes damages. In a separate 2024 case involving Bloomberg and Zee Entertainment, the Supreme Court said judges considering such orders must weigh free speech, reputation and the risk of harm that cannot be repaired later. A retraction can correct the public record, and an apology can be part of a settlement. Ending a civil suit by agreement ordinarily requires a lawful written compromise signed by the parties and recorded by the court.

What is still before the Delhi High Court?

The court’s September 24 order records that formal mediation had failed by February 19. Skariah’s lawyer said a proposal had been on the table since November 2025. The judge gave both sides one last opportunity to settle and listed the case for December 14. The order says the matter will proceed if the talks fail. LuLu’s public refusal to settle came after that order.