OYO Moves Delhi HC To Restrain Media From Reporting On FIR For Fake Bookings

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court issued notice on a plea filed by OYO Hotels & Homes, seeking to restrain various media outlets from publishing allegedly defamatory content related to the company and its founder, Ritesh Agarwal, in connection with an FIR registered in Rajasthan.

Justice Amit Bansal, who presided over the matter, granted OYO permission to share its version of events along with a copy of a Rajasthan High Court order staying the FIR.

“In the said event, the news publications shall duly publish the same,” the court ordered.

OYO At The Centre Of Legal & Regulatory Scrutiny

The hospitality tech company has recently come under fire over alleged violations of hotel operations regulations, tax norms, and consumer rights in Rajasthan. The conflict stems from complaints by hotel associations and state authorities accusing OYO of:

Unfair trade practices
Delayed payments to partner hotels
Unilateral contract modifications
Non-payment Of Collected GST
Several hotel owners, especially in Jaipur, Udaipur, and Jodhpur, have raised concerns about OYO’s business practices, including deep discounting and arbitrary terms.
FIR Over Alleged ₹22.5 Crore Fake Bookings

The current case revolves around an FIR filed by Samskara Resort in Jaipur, which alleged that OYO inflated earnings using fake bookings worth ₹22.5 crore. The resort claims this deception led to a GST notice being issued against it.

According to the FIR, similar tactics were reportedly used across other properties in the state, prompting tax recovery actions by authorities.

However, on April 23, 2025, the Rajasthan High Court issued a stay against any coercive steps being taken in this matter.

OYO Seeks Legal Protection

Represented by Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, OYO told the Delhi High Court that several news articles reporting on the FIR were published without obtaining the company’s version, thereby damaging its reputation.

Varma requested an ex-parte injunction to stop media outlets from publishing allegedly malicious articles. Alternatively, he asked the Court to allow OYO to present its side publicly.

OYO also sought directions to restrict the use of its trademark and Ritesh Agarwal’s image in these reports, citing reputational harm.

The court, while declining to issue any immediate interim order, permitted OYO to disseminate its version of the story.

As of now, the media outlets named in the petition have been served notices. The matter is expected to proceed with further hearings once the publications respond. The case has put a spotlight on the tension between media reporting, business reputation, and ongoing legal proceedings.