‘If You Admit the Claim, Deposit the Amount Along with the Costs of the Suit in Court; Otherwise, Produce All Documents Relied Upon in Your Defence!’—Clear Instructions in Court Summons!
Court Issues Suit Summons and Show-Cause Notices to Aaditya Thackeray and Eight Others; Directs Appearance in Person or Through a Duly Instructed Advocate at 11 AM on November 4!
UDDHAV THACKERAY, ANIL DESHMUKH, SANJAY RAUT, SUSHMA ANDHARE, AKHIL CHITRE, ASEEM SARODE, NIKHIL WAGLE AND VARUN SARDESAI ALSO SERVED WITH COURT PROCESS—SUIT SUMMONS AND SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED TO ALL NINE DEFENDANTS!
Court Summons Addressed to ‘Matoshree’! Court Bailiff to Undertake Formal Service of Summons on Aaditya and Uddhav Thackeray; Other Defendants Also Required to Answer the Suit!
Disha Salian’s Father Satish Salian Intensifies Legal Battle; Seeks Removal of Defamatory Social Media Content, Public Apology and ₹2,000-Crore Bank Guarantee or Other Security!
Mumbai/Thane | October 22, 2026
In a significant development in the ₹2,000-crore civil defamation suit filed by Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, the Civil Court at Thane has issued Suit Summons and Show-Cause Notices to Aaditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Anil Deshmukh and five other defendants, requiring them to respond to the proceedings.
The court documents dated October 21, 2026, direct the defendants to appear before the court on November 4, 2026, at 11:00 AM, either personally or through a duly instructed advocate.
The summons expressly warn that failure to appear may result in the suit being heard and determined in the defendants’ absence.
More importantly, the summons require the defendants to file their written statements and produce the documents in their possession or control upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence.
The legal battle has now reached a stage where the defendants are being called upon to place their defence before the court, supported by the relevant documentary material.
‘Fail to Appear, and the Suit May Be Decided in Your Absence!’—Court’s Explicit Warning
The summons have been issued in Special Civil Suit No. 469/2026, pending before Smt. Shraddha Sudamrao Pansare, 10th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane.
The court summons contain the following express warning:
“Take notice that, in default of your appearance on the day before mentioned, the suit will be heard and determined in your absence.”
The legal implication is clear: if the defendant fails to appear on the specified date, the court may proceed to hear and determine the suit in the defendant’s absence, subject to the applicable procedural requirements.
The separate Show-Cause Notice contains a further warning requiring the defendant to appear and show cause against the application.
It states that failure to do so may result in the application being heard and determined ex parte.
Thus, the court has expressly notified the defendants of the consequences of failing to participate in the judicial proceedings.
‘File Your Written Statement and Produce All Documents Relied Upon in Your Defence!’—Court’s Directions
The summons also require the defendants to submit their written statements of defence.
They are further directed to produce the documents in their possession or control upon which they intend to rely in support of their defence, set-off or counterclaim, along with the necessary list of documents.
The directions are significant because the defendants must now address the allegations raised in the civil suit through the established judicial process.
The central question is what documentary material Aaditya Thackeray and the other defendants will rely upon to support their respective defences.
Public statements and political exchanges are one thing; placing a legally sustainable defence, supported by relevant material, before a competent court is another.
‘If You Admit the Claim, Deposit the Money and Costs of the Suit in Court!’—Important Provision in the Summons
The suit summons contain another important instruction.
The relevant clause states:
“If you admit the claim, you should pay the money into Court together with the costs of the suit.”
This means that where a defendant admits the claim, the summons contemplate payment of the admitted amount together with the costs of the suit into court, to avoid execution of a decree that may be passed against the defendant.
Satish Salian has instituted a civil defamation suit involving a claim of ₹2,000 crore.
However, this provision is conditional upon admission of the claim. The court has not, merely by issuing the summons, ordered Aaditya Thackeray or the other defendants to deposit ₹2,000 crore.
The claim remains subject to adjudication in accordance with law.
Not Just Aaditya Thackeray—Suit Summons and Show-Cause Notices Issued to All Nine Defendants!
The judicial proceedings are not confined to Aaditya Thackeray alone.
According to the case documents and the notices issued in the proceedings, the following nine persons have been named as defendants:
- Aaditya Uddhav Thackeray
- Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray
- Anil Deshmukh
- Sanjay Raut
- Sushma Andhare
- Akhil Chitre
- Aseem Sarode
- Nikhil Wagle
- Varun Sardesai
Suit Summons and Show-Cause Notices have been issued to all nine defendants.
The defendants have been called upon to appear on November 4, 2026, at 11 AM, personally or through duly instructed advocates, and respond to the proceedings.
Failure to appear may result in the court proceeding in their absence, in accordance with law.
The ₹2,000-crore defamation proceedings have therefore entered an important procedural stage involving nine prominent political and public figures.
Court Summons Addressed to ‘Matoshree’—Bailiff to Undertake Formal Service!
Another notable feature of the proceedings is the address mentioned in the court summons.
The summons issued to Aaditya Thackeray specify:
Matoshree Bungalow, Kala Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051.
The court records also identify Matoshree as the address for Uddhav Thackeray.
The summons are to be formally served through the court’s authorised process, including the bailiff or process-serving officer, in accordance with the applicable procedure.
The summons acknowledgment records also mention Shiv Sena Bhavan, Dadar, as the address for Sanjay Raut, Sushma Andhare and Akhil Chitre.
The issuance of judicial process at Matoshree, a politically significant address associated with the Thackeray family, is a noteworthy aspect of the proceedings.
Why Has Satish Salian Filed a ₹2,000-Crore Defamation Suit?
Satish Salian, father of the late Disha Salian, has instituted the civil proceedings over statements and publications that he contends are false, defamatory and damaging to his reputation.
According to the plaintiff’s case, certain political leaders and public figures made statements concerning him, his daughter’s death and his pursuit of legal remedies.
The plaintiff maintains that these statements sought to portray his legal efforts as politically motivated and caused serious harm to his personal reputation, dignity and standing in society.
He further contends that certain public statements and social media publications misrepresented material facts relating to the investigation and judicial proceedings concerning his daughter’s death.
On these grounds, Satish Salian has sought damages and other reliefs through the civil suit before the Thane court.
The truth or falsity of the disputed statements, the availability of legal defences and the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages remain matters for judicial determination.
Removal of Defamatory Posts, Public Apology and ₹2,000-Crore Bank Guarantee Sought!
In addition to the principal defamation claim, the plaintiff has sought interim reliefs against the defendants.
These include removal of allegedly defamatory social media posts, videos and other publications, along with a public apology.
The plaintiff has also sought a bank guarantee of ₹2,000 crore or appropriate security measures, including reliefs concerning the defendants’ assets.
The applications further seek restrictions on alienation of property and other protective measures, including attachment where legally permissible.
These are reliefs requested by the plaintiff. The issuance of Show-Cause Notices does not mean that the court has already granted them.
The defendants are being given an opportunity to contest the applications before the court decides the issues in accordance with law.
Defamation Proceedings Gain Momentum Following High Court Litigation
The plaintiff’s case also refers to the earlier police investigation into Disha Salian’s death, questions raised concerning that investigation and the proceedings before the Bombay High Court.
Satish Salian maintains that his efforts have been directed towards securing justice for his daughter.
He contends that public statements questioning his motives and attacking his credibility have caused further damage to his reputation and undermined his pursuit of legal remedies.
According to the plaintiff, the alleged defamatory statements continued despite the judicial proceedings concerning his daughter’s death.
These assertions form part of the plaintiff’s case and will have to be examined in the light of the pleadings, evidence and legal submissions of the respective parties.
November 4 Hearing: All Eyes on Thane Court!
The civil defamation proceedings are being pursued on behalf of Satish Salian by Advocate Tanveer Nizam and Advocate Ishwarlal Agarwal.
The next hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2026, at 11:00 AM.
Attention will now turn to the responses filed by Aaditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray and the other defendants, the documents they rely upon, and their objections to the interim reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
The court has already made the procedural consequences of non-appearance clear through its summons and Show-Cause Notices.
If the defendants fail to appear, the court may proceed to hear and determine the suit or the relevant applications in their absence, subject to law.
The case underscores a fundamental constitutional principle: No person, however politically influential, is above the law. Every litigant is subject to the same judicial process and must answer proceedings before a competent court in accordance with law.
