Breach of Judicial Undertaking
Subject : Civil Law - Contempt and Compliance
In a firm reminder of the sanctity of judicial undertakings, the Delhi High Court has directed Galaxy Zoom India Pvt Ltd to immediately remove a published article that reportedly violated a prior assurance given to the court. The order, passed by Justice Anish Dayal, underscores the judiciary's expectation of absolute compliance with statements made by parties during ongoing litigation.
The dispute involves News Laundry Media Pvt Ltd and Galaxy Zoom India Pvt Ltd . In the initial stages of the suit on July 6, 2023, counsel for the defendants had provided a clear, unequivocal statement on behalf of the company: they would refrain from publishing, commenting on, communicating about, or issuing any material—be it a video or an article—pertaining to the ongoing dispute until the next date of hearing.
Despite this commitment to the court, the plaintiffs brought to the court's notice that in July 2024, the defendants had published an article targeting the plaintiffs’ programme, "Cutting South." The article reportedly contained allegations of corruption and accused the organizers of "distorting the map of India," directly defying the previous non-dissemination undertaking.
Upon perusing the offending article, the Delhi High Court took a serious view of the violation. Justice Anish Dayal ordered the defendants to take down the specified material from their website immediately. Furthermore, the Court has directed the defendants to file an affidavit of compliance, which must also disclose whether any other similar articles have been disseminated since the July 2023 order.
The High Court’s ruling emphasizes that court-recorded undertakings are not merely suggestions but binding directions. The following observations define the court's stance:
This order serves as a stern warning against the violation of court undertakings. The requirement to file an affidavit of compliance ensures transparency and prevents further potential breaches. The case is now listed for May 19, 2025, where the court will assess the defendants' adherence to the current directive. For legal professionals, this case reinforces the importance of meticulous adherence to interim undertakings, as the court maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward the dilution of its orders.
View the social posts created for this story.
judicial undertaking - content takedown - breach of order - digital media - legal compliance - litigation - defiance of order
#DelhiHighCourt #JudicialCompliance
Accommodation Requests Do Not Constitute Mala Fide Transfers: MP High Court Upholds Government Authority
23 Jun 2026
Denial of 7th Pay Commission to NHM Employees Despite Approved Service Bye-laws is Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court
23 Jun 2026
Arbitrary Termination of Long-Term Workers Illegal: Orissa HC
29 Jun 2026
POCSO Court Awards Death Penalty to 65-Year-Old Convict
30 Jun 2026
Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be Invoked for Title Disputes Unless Section 23 Applies: Allahabad High Court
04 Jul 2026
Vague And Nebulous Allegations Do Not Warrant Judicial Interference In Policy Matters: Patna High Court
04 Jul 2026
12-Year Possession Mandatory To Resist Land Eviction: Jharkhand HC
04 Jul 2026
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Statewide ATS Probe Into Funding Of 4,000 Unaided Madrassas
04 Jul 2026
Advocates Have No Right to Demand Out-Of-Turn Listing of Cases: Madras High Court
07 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.