Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Sunil Sachdeva - Plaintiff
Versus
Owner of Domain Name www.cjr7.com & Ors. - Defendants
CS(OS) 385 of 2019, IA No. 10455 of 2019(u/O.XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC) & IA No. 11070 of 2019(u/O.XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC)
Decided On : 13-11-2019
Defamation - Domain Name - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 499 - Right to Privacy - Right to Information Act, 2005 - [IPC Section 499, Right to Privacy, Right to Information Act, 2005]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sued the owner of a domain name, a web hosting service provider, and Google entities for defamation and sought injunctions and damages. The allegedly defamatory content was posted on the defendant's website, and the plaintiff's identity was not disclosed. The plaintiff's reputation was harmed by false allegations, and the defendants were proceeded against ex parte.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the statements to be defamatory within the meaning of IPC Section 499. It recognized the plaintiff's cause of action for defamation, upheld the right to reputation, and balanced it with the right to freedom of speech. The court also considered the right to privacy and the need to harmonize the right to know with personal privacy and confidentiality.
Issues: The issues involved defamation, right to privacy, and the balance between freedom of speech and reputation protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the protection of reputation as a personal right, the need for a balance between freedom of speech and reputation, and the importance of controlling the dissemination of personal information. It also highlighted the right to privacy and the need to harmonize it with the right to know.
Final Decision: The court passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions against the defendants and directing the web hosting service provider to block the defamatory URL.
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against (i) owner of Domain Name www.cjr7.com; (ii) Net4 Network Services Limited; and, (iii) Google India Private Limited, (i) for recovery of damages of Rs.2,10,00,000/- from defendant no.1 for defaming the plaintiff; (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from hosting online on their website and online search engine respectively statements defamatory of the plaintiff; (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from posting or otherwise communicating to any person or public at large, by any means, the allegedly defamatory content; and, (iv) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender an apology and to permanently block and/or disable access of any person to the URL https://cjr7.com/part-1-medanta-and-its-shady-investor-sunil-sachdeva-and-these-people-are-being-given-a-free-pass-and-to-cash-out-with-1000-crores-while-madhu-trehan-has-the-audacity-to-judge-people-and-call-her/.
2. The suit came up first before this Court on 2nd August, 2019, when the following order was passed:-
4. It is the plea of the plaintiff, that from the domain name, the identity of the person behind the domain name cannot be known.
5. A perusal of the printout of the impugned content on the domain name also does not show the same to be disclosing the identity of the author thereof.
6. Though the impugned contents are found to be in the nature of a whistle blower but it is felt that when the publisher thereof is not even willing to disclose the identity, such malicious campaign should not be permitted.
7. The counsel for the plaintiff is informed, that it has come before this Court in other cases, that Google India Private Limited is unable to comply with the directions as generally sought against all the three defendants in the present case and it is only Google Inc. which can comply with such a direction, if issued.
8. The plaintiff is at liberty to make the necessary amends.
9. Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief, electronically to the defendants, returnable on 29th August, 2019. The defendant no.1 be also served through domain name.
10. The defendant no.2, stated to be the Registrar of the domain names with which the defendant no.1 Domain Name www.cjr7.com is registered, is also directed to, on the next date of hearing, disclose to this Court in a sealed envelop, the particulars of the identity of the defendant no.1 Domain Name www.cjr7.com.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the plaintiff impleaded Google LLC, USA and amended the plaint to claim the last of the aforesaid reliefs and which amendment was allowed and summons of the suit and the notice of the application for interim relief were ordered to be issued to the newly impleaded defendants as well.
4. The counsel for the defendant no.2, on 29th August, 2019 supplied the details of the person behind the domain name, impleaded as defendant no.1, as under:-
CRN_ID-000541133
FIRST_NAME-nish
LAST_NAME-nish
ORGANIZATION_NAME-CJR7
ADDRESS-S-92 Greater Kailash
CITY-Delhi
STATE-Delhi
POSTAL_CODE-110048
COUNTRY-India
PHONE-+91.9818371797
EMAIL-yomedia@rediffmail.com
ALT_EMAIL-sales@mark-design.net”
5. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant no.1 has been served as per the details disclosed as aforesaid and an affidavit of service has been filed.
6. None appears for the defendant no.1. Only the counsel for the defendant no.2 Net4 Network Services Limited, the counsel for the defendant no.3 Google India Private Limited and the counsel for the defendant no.4 Google LLC, USA appear.
7. The defendant no.1 is proceeded again
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
