The main legal point established is the court's power to grant injunctions to restrain individuals from making disparaging statements that affect the rights and reputation of others.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present suit, plaintiffs seek a permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction to restrain defendant nos. 1 to 3, their affiliates, agents and any other persons including defendant no. 6 acting for or on their behalf from making, publishing, distributing, posting, tweeting, sharing, circulating, repeating, republishing, uploading and/or downloading the impugned statements on any website or other electronic media or in any manner whatsoever that affects or may have the effect of disparaging, tarnishing, by demeaning, defaming or infringing the rights of the plaintiff; direct defendant Nos. 4 to 5 to take down or remove all the impugned statements and any other such statements connected with or related to the same and destroy the physical or electronic copies within the power, possession and access of the defendants and provide the Internet Protocol addresses of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and other persons creating and sharing the said impugned statements; damages and costs.

2. Summons in the present suit were issued vide order dated 8th May 2019. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not enter appearance. Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 6th November, 2019. Further the plaintiff does not press any prayer against Defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8

3. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are members of Viceroy Research Group who admittedly hold shorting positions in various stocks of the plaintiffs that is Ebix Group who are leading suppliers of on-demand suppliers and e-commerce services to the insurance, financial, healthcare and governance industries. The defendants have published reports and statements making outrageous allegations against the plaintiffs pertaining to accounting irregularities, attempts to defraud and mislead government agencies, investors and shareholders by employing certain tactics to engage in tax and regulatory fraud.

4. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendants had circulated the impugned statements to various banks and financial institutions when one of the plaintiff companies took steps towards the listing of its shares on recognised stock exchanges in India. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 also contacted news agencies and circulated the impugned statements. In furtherance to the same, the news agencies sought comments and clarifications from the plaintiffs.

5. The plaintiffs conduct their business in fifty countries with more than 12,000 employees. The plaintiffs have a reputable track record in terms of compliance, ethics, operating performance, research and development in India. The plaintiffs have also maintained highest standards of financial discipline and professional standards by conducting their business in accordance with the applicable law.

6. EbixCash World Money Ltd., plaintiff No.1 herein, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It provides foreign exchange services, financial intermediation and information technology services. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd. that is plaintiff No.2, is a software development company which develops, designs and deploys products for the insurance, financial and healthcare sectors. Ebix Inc. being plaintiff no. 3 is the parent entity of the Ebix Group listed on NASDAQ and has a current market capitalization of over USD $1.5 billion approximately.

7. Further, in the last 24 months, the plaintiffs have invested USD $700 million into India while acquiring over 15 companies in various sectors including but not limited to foreign exchange, money remittance, credit card operations, travel sector, e-learning, healthcare, lending and wealth management sectors. The plaintiffs also intend to make further acquisitions of approximately USD $400 million in India.

8. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 operate and manage a website titled and a Twitter handled by the name @viceroyresearch. The addresses of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are unknown. Defendant no. 1 currently resides in South Africa whereas defendant Nos. 2 an