Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. vs Yohan Tengra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 635

R. I. CHAGLA
Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Yohan Tengra – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Mr. Hitesh Jain, Mr. Yuvraj Sing, Monisha Mane Mr. Bijal Vora, Pranav Nair i/b Parinam Law Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. C. Keswani a/w Mr. Dinesh Pednekar i/b Shailesh Poria i/b Economic Laws Practice, Mr. Vedchetan Patil a/w Saransh Jain, Sneha Dey, Sunayana Kashid, Ishwarlal Agarwal a/w Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Vikas Pawar, Sohan Agate, Samkit Shah, Mr. Vijay Kurle and Tanveer Nizam a/w Ms. Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Mr. Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Sohan Agate, Vikas Pawar, Samkit Shah, Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha i/b Abhishek Mishra a/w Dipali Ojha, Meena Thakur, Pratik Jain Saklecha, Snehal Surve, Hania Shaikh, Sourav Khanna, Sohan Agate, Vikas Pawar, Samkit Shah

JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Interim Application, the Applicants/Plaintiffs are seeking to restrain the Defendant Nos.1 to 5, (themselves and through their servants, agents, assigns and/or any person claiming by or through them) from making and/or publishing and/or reproducing and/or circulating and/or speaking and/or communicating, any derogatory and defamatory statements i.e., the defamatory videos and the defamatory contents as mentioned in Exhibits E to K of the Plaint and/or any like nature in any medium including television, print media and/or the internet and/or whatsapp in any manner whatsoever. Further consequential relief has been sought inter-alia against Defendant Nos.1 to 5 to forthwith delete and/or remove the defamatory videos and the defamatory contents at Exhibits E to K of the Plaint from their respective websites and social media platforms and to issue an unconditional apology stating that the defamatory contents were baseless, unsubstantiated and unwarranted. The relief has also been sought against YouTube and Twitter and other social media platforms in particular, Defendant Nos.6 and 7 or social media accounts, in like nature to the aforementioned relief.

2 The P