Jurisdiction for defamation suits can be established based on location of reputational harm, and applications for return of plaint must consider circumstances as they existed at the time of filing.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

I.A. 13894/2022 (U/o VII Rule 10 & 11 of CPC - for rejection/return of the plaint

1. By way of the present application, defendant nos. 2 and 3 seek rejection and return of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

I. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The plaintiffs comprise Operation Mercy India Foundation and O.M. Books Foundation, both companies registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, having their registered offices in Telangana. Plaintiff No. 3, Joseph Gregory Dsouza, is the director of both entities and has been instrumental in their functioning since their incorporation. The plaintiffs collectively form part of the O.M. Group, purportedly engaged in charitable and philanthropic activities across India, including the running of educational institutions and the sale of religious books. Defendant no. 1, Meta owns and operates the social media platform Facebook. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are individuals who operate a Facebook page titled "OM Justice Seekers" created using the email address omjusticeseekers@gmail.com.

3. The present dispute arises from the creation of the aforenoted page, through which defendant no. 2 began disseminating posts alleging benami transactions, misappropriation of donations, exorbitant fees, and adverse conditions within the plaintiffs' institutions.

4. The plaintiffs contend that these posts are defamatory, false, and malicious, and were deliberately published with the intent to harm their reputation, goodwill, and charitable activities. It is stated that certain disputes involving former employees of the plaintiffs were pending before various legal forums in Telangana, including criminal complaints alleging financial irregularities and non-compliance with FEMA regulations. The plaintiffs assert that defendant no. 3 has exploited these disputes to publish misleading content, including references to ongoing litigation, thereby attempting to prejudice the plaintiffs' legal position and public standing.

5. The impugned posts are stated to have been widely viewed, shared, and commented upon both within India and abroad, causing significant reputational and financial harm to the Plaintiffs. The plaintiffs state that the communications received from donor organisations in June 2020 indicate a substantial reduction in donations attributable to the negative publicity generated by the impugned webpage. Plaintiff No. 2's bookstore operations in Delhi have similarly suffered. Employees of the Plaintiffs have also received emails from members of the public, including residents of Delhi, expressing concern regarding the defamatory content being circulated.

6. The Plaintiffs assert that the ongoing publication of defamatory statements on the impugned webpage is causing irreparable injury to their reputation, goodwill, and charitable work. It is in these circumstances that the Plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of the present suit seeking, inter alia, a permanent mandatory injunction directing the removal of the impugned webpage and all defamatory content contained therein.

II. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES

7. Mr. G. Arudhra Rao, learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 and 3, submitted that all the parties to the present proceedings are based in Hyderabad and no genuine part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The Plaintiffs have deliberately chosen this forum with the intent to cause inconvenience to the defendant nos. 2 and 3. Further, he argued th