Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Google India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Visaka Industries Limited & Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 505 of 2016
Decided On : 18-11-2016
Constitution of India - Articles 141, 19(2) - Information Technology Act, 2002 - Section 79 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 79 (3) - Specific Relief Act - Section 39 - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Copyright Act - Section III - plaintiff Industries Limited is a registered company carrying on business of asbestos cement sheets since having manufacturing plants and more than marketing offices all over India filed suit claiming declaration that the Messages are defamatory and also sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the Messages 1 & 2 posted by the 1st defendant in the blog site of the defendants - Defendant is a coordinator of Ban a group which is hosted by 2nd defendant publishes regular articles regarding various issues the 1st defendant posted an article - Single manufacturing company of Asbestos cement products. Further the names of renowned politicians like who have nothing to do with the ownership or management of the plaintiff company were mentioned in the said article - He also published an article dated with a caption Asbestos Industries making gains said article contained defamatory statement against the plaintiff’s company which was available for worldwide audience - Asbestos cement sheets are being manufactured in India for more than years and there is no single case where the health of the people has been effected by usage of Chrysotile asbestos which is a raw material for manufacturing asbestos cement sheets - Held, Court rightly exonerated the defendant appellant from its liability and the same was affirmed by the 1st appellate Court in paragraph of its judgment but strangely without applying its mind issued a direction to remove the defamatory content posted by the defendant against the plaintiff in the message referred supra such direction in the nature of mandatory injunction against defendant is erroneous direction issued by the first appellate Court against defendant No.2 is liable to be set aside since it is contrary to its findings in paragraph of the judgment - Court against the plaintiff the plaintiff had neither challenged the adverse finding recorded by the first appellate Court in paragraph either by filing cross objections or separate appeal or at least during hearing of this appeal in view of Order absence of any separate appeal or cross objections by the plaintiff - Appellate Court in its inconsistent finding at paragraph No.23 concluded that the defendant No.2 also liable and directed to withdraw the messages posted by the defendant but strangely the first appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding appellant/defendant No.2. Therefore, on the face of the judgment, it is erroneous and inconsistent with one finding to the other, such judgment cannot be sustained under law, more particularly when it is in compliance of Order XLI Rule it is liable to be set aside - Accordingly the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 and against the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein - Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated passed in by the I Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court dismissing the suit against the defendant on the file of the XVIII Junior Civil Judge – cum – Additional Rent Controller No costs - petitions pending shall also stand closed - Ordered Accordingly.
The case involves a dispute between M/s. Visaka Industries Limited, a company manufacturing asbestos cement sheets, and defendants Google India Private Limited, along with other associated entities. The plaintiff alleged that defamatory messages were posted online, specifically on a blogsite managed by the defendants, which falsely depicted the company and its operations in a negative light. The plaintiff sought a declaration that these messages were defamatory and requested a mandatory injunction for their removal, claiming that the defamatory content damaged their reputation and business.
The defendants, including Google India, argued that they were intermediary service providers and thus not liable for the content posted by third parties. They contended that they did not control or edit the user-generated content and that liability could only arise if they had actual knowledge of the defamatory material and failed to act with due diligence to remove it.
Regarding copyright infringement, the court observed that the liability of intermediaries depends on whether they have actual knowledge of infringing content and whether they exercise due diligence in removing such content upon being notified. The court emphasized that intermediaries are generally not liable for third-party content unless they are aware of the infringement and fail to act promptly. It was noted that proving actual knowledge and exercising due diligence are essential to establishing liability, and in the absence of such proof, intermediaries are protected under relevant laws. The court also highlighted that intermediaries are expected to act as neutral platforms and that their liability is limited unless they participate in or facilitate the infringing activity knowingly.
1. The 2nd defendant-Google India Private Limited in O.S.No.143 of 2010 filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, challenging the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.50 of 2014 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, reversing the judgment of XVIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad in O.S.No.143 of 2010.
2. The Appellate Court while declaring that message ID c9c2524a080731712p120a3110rc120b94a135de0b2@mail.gmail.c omURL”http//groups.gogole.co.in/group/banasbestosindia/msgf3 0988efldfd0826d?hl-en&dmode=source dated 31.07.2008 (hereinafter referred to as Message 1) and message ID c9c2524a0811202054t4ae0a4dudec0dec0d29fc4b0901@mail.gmai l.comURL:httpgroups.google.co.in/group/banasbestosindia/msg/6 cde794a4082157?h1=en&dmode=source dated 21.11.2008 (hereafter referred to as Message 2) posted by the 1st defendant on the blogsite of the defendants 2 & 3 as defamatory in nature and directed the defendants 2 & 3 to withdraw Message 1 & Message 2 posted by the 1st defendant on their blogsite, by mandatory injunction.
3. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties in O.S.No.143 of 2010 will be adopted throughout the judgment.
4. The plaintiff M/s Visaka Industries Limited is a registered company carrying on business of asbestos cement sheets since 1981, having 7 manufacturing plants and more than 25 marketing offices all over India, filed suit claiming declaration that the Messages 1 & 2 are defamatory and also sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the Messages 1 & 2 posted by the 1st defendant in the blogsite of the defendants 2 & 3.
5. The 1st defendant is a coordinator of Ban “Asbestos India”, a group which is hosted by 2nd defendant, publishes regular articles regarding various issues. On 21.11.2008, the 1st defendant posted an article with a caption “Poisoning the system:
Hindustan Times”, aimed at the plaintiff’s company, as if it is a single manufacturing company of Asbestos cement products. Further, the names of renowned politicians like Sri G.Venkataswamy and Smt. Sonia Gandhi who have nothing to do with the ownership or management of the plaintiff company were mentioned in the said article. He also published an article dated 31.07.2008 with a caption “Visaka Asbestos Industries making gains”. The said article contained defamatory statement against the plaintiff’s company which was available for worldwide audience.
6. The asbestos cement sheets are being manufactured in India for more than 70 years and there is no single case where the health of the people has been effected by usage of Chrysotile asbestos (white) fibre which is a raw material for manufacturing asbestos cement sheets. The Government of India has permitted manufacturing Asbestos cement sheets with Chrysotile asbestos fibre and granted environmental clearance for all manufacturing units of the plaintiff.
7. The acts and misdeeds of the defendants in continuing the postings of the above said article in the cyber space aimed not only the company but also its employees. There are other industries like Everest group, Ramco group who are engaged in the manufacture of asbestos cement sheets, but the plaintiff company is singled out in both the above mentioned articles and those defendants are trying to bring down the image of the plaintiff’s company by running ‘Hate Campaign’ against them through the said articles. Even though thee is no ban on production and usage of asbestos products in 95% of the world nations including countries like USA and Canada, the contents of the above said article read that “Visaka Industries Manufacturers asbestos products i.e., banned in 50 countries” is a defamatory statement. The plaintiff further contended that the contents of the said article dated 30.03.2008 read that the plaintiff company belongs to Sri G. Venkataswamy’s family and in the article dated 21.03.2008 it was titled as “poisoning the system: Hindustan Times”. The article p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
