No, I did not intend to imply anything about Malhotra's writings, which I have never read. I wanted to call attention to two other cases of plagiarism, far more extensive than Malhotra's. Even if the possibility that something might be done about them is remote, it may be useful to know about them.

I was very disappointed when I saw what T. G. Mainkar had done with the Sāṃkhyakārikā and Gauḍapāda’s commentary, copying even omissions and typographical errors in Har Dutt Sharma's translation. It seems that all he did was read and edit the English, without even consulting the Sanskrit. He improved some English words here and there, and deleted all the parentheses that Sharma had used to distinguish his own additions from what is in the Sanskrit. Yet Sharma's superior translation has fallen into oblivion, while Mainkar's was again reprinted in 2004. I have scanned and posted Sharma's book in three parts here: http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/sanskrit-texts-3/sanskrit-hindu-texts/

Similarly, I was very disappointed to see that Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar had largely only copied Wilson's translation of the Ṛgveda, substituting God for the Vedic gods. The notes they added are helpful, and they reproduced Aufrecht's romanized text, and also a devanagari text. But I expected their translation to follow the Arya Samaj line of interpretation throughout, so that we could see how it differs from Sāyaṇa’s interpretation. What unsuspecting readers got instead, other than God for the gods, was in fact Sāyaṇa’s interpretation, by way of the silent appropriation of Wilson's translation.