Not very long ago, actress Luviena Lodh had alleged that her husband Sumit Sabherwal was involved in drugs business and would supply it to actresses like Amyra Dastur and Sapna Pabbi among others. She also alleged that Sumit was filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt’s nephew,  and that Bhatt was aware of drugs being supplied.
Soon after, Mahesh Bhatt and his brother Mukesh Bhatt defied the charges stating that Sumit was just an employee with Vishesh Films. They claimed that Lodh has tried to defame them, and now, she has made the same allegations.
The actress’ lawyer has released a statement in which they claim that PR teams of the Bhatt brothers as well as Amyra Dastur are spreading rumours on Lodh.

The statement read:

We refer to the people who are involved in spreading the rumour and picking a PAGE 3 CONTENT by giving air to the false statements said by my client, the people involved in sabotaging our clients reputation and spreading the rumour mill are THE PR – TEAM of the none other than the following people: 
1. Mahesh Bhatt, 2. Mukesh Bhatt, 3. Amyra Dastur, 4. Kumkum Saigal & 5. Sahil Saigal 
That without mentioning the details of the orders passed & making furore of adinterim orders passed which has entirely a different interpretation. 
That following the recent incidents the video that was released by our Client Ms. Luviena Lodh on 23rd October 2020 and the interviews there after, Mahesh Bhatt & Mukesh Bhatt filed & Amyra Dastur have filed separate suits in High Court of Bombay & Kumkum Saigal & Sahil Saigal in City Civil Court at Bombay for defamation in a hope that my client will be frightened and succumb to their bullying strategy in front of the entire nation, eventually which will result in backing off by our client. On the contrary, note that our client being strong willed has stood her ground and maintained that she has spoken truth and nothing but the truth. 
As far as hearings in defamation Suit of Mahesh Bhatt & Mukesh Bhatt on 26th October 2020 Before High Court of Bombay (Suit (L)/5102/2020) they tried to stop our client from holding press conference and getting a gag order against our client the same was orally refused/deferred also the argument for deleting the video was not considered and only post the statement made by our Advocate that our client neither defamed nor are willing to defame anyone orders were passed which interprets we would not defame them in future. 
For the sake of brevity, the relevant paragraph is repeated: There will be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) operative hereafter. For ease of reference prayer clause (a) reads as follows which reads as follows: – “(a). Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, an order and injunction of this Hon’ble court against the respondent and/or her agent and/or servant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the respondent from making, publishing, circulating and/or communicating to the public any defamatory / slanderous comments and/or statements against the applicants, whether by way of the offending video at Exhibit-A to the plaint or by any other means whatsoever.
As far as hearings of defamation suit of Amyra Dastur (Suit (L)/5102/2020) before the Bombay High Court on 9 th November 2020 all the points were put forth for deleting the video to stopping our client by way of further communications but the court allowed to file us reply and when our advocate made a statement we have neither in past nor in future defamed anyone and we are ready to take narco – analysis test an ad – interim was passed which if explained to layman speaks that in future there should not be any defamation so primarily no courts in any way has barred our clientfrom speaking the truth. 
We also state that we have mentioned that our client has never spoken anything other than facts and is ready to undergo Narco – Analysis test and lie detector test if Amyra Dastur is ushering the gospel truth then let them also take the test and all will be out on which the advocate refused to take the tests and things can be read between the lines why the person claiming the defamation refusing for Narco – Analysis test and Lie detector test. 
For the sake of brevity, the relevant paragraph is repeated Having considered the respective submissions at bar, it would be just and proper to grant ad-interim relief to the plaintiff in terms of prayer clause (c). For easy reference, prayer clause (c) is reproduced here, which reads thus; (c). That pending the hearing and disposal of the Suit, an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court be passed against the Defendant and/or her agent and/or servant and/or any person claiming through and/or under the Defendant from publishing, circulating and/or communicating to the public and/or republishing any defamatory/slanderous comments and/or communicating to the public any defamatory, slanderous, libellous comments and/or statements against the Applicant/Plaintiff, whether by way of the offending and/ or defamatory statements against the applicant/Petitioner and/or the offending videos listed in the ‘Schedule at Exhibit B’ to the Plaint and/or by any other means and/or mediums whatsoever.