Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 23379
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
DMI FINANCE PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
KULDEEP SHARMA AND ORS – Respondent
CS(OS) 165/2024
SUMIT CHANDER
The court acknowledged the plaintiff's right to seek injunction against defamatory content while considering the safe harbor immunity of social media platforms under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 79 - Defamation - Plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction against defendant No.3 to remove defamatory videos uploaded by defendant No.1 - Plaintiff claims damages of Rs. 2.10 crores for loss caused by alleged defamatory statements - Defendant No.3 asserts safe harbor immunity under Section 79, stating no role in content creation or upload. (Paras 1, 9, 10)
(B) Defamation - Essential elements - The plaintiff alleges that the content suggests strong-arm tactics by the plaintiff company, constituting misinformation and defamation. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleges that defendant No.1 made defamatory statements about the plaintiff company in a conversation with a reporter from defendant No.2, leading to claims of damages and a mandatory injunction to remove the content.
Findings of Court:
The court registered the plaint as a suit and issued summons to the defendants, allowing the plaintiff to take requisite steps for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issues include the validity of the plaintiff's defamation claims and the applicability of safe harbor provisions for defendant No.3.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the plaintiff's right to seek an injunction against defamatory content while considering the safe harbor provisions applicable to social media platforms.
Result: Summons issued; matter to be listed for further proceedings.
% 05.04.2024 By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction to defendant No.3, to remove and delete certain videos uploaded on their social media platform by defendant No.1, on the allegation that the contents thereof are defamatory of the plaintiff company.
2. The plaintiff also seeks damages in the sum of Rs. 2.10 crores for alleged loss and injury caused to them by the allegedly defamatory content, which comprises utterances made by defendant No.1 in conversation with a reporter of defendant No.2. The plaintiff also seeks other consequential and ancillary reliefs.
3. In compliance of order dated 28.02.2024 and 15.03.2024, Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has placed on CS(OS) 165/2024 Page 2 of 4 record a transcript of the allegedly defamatory statements alongwith an English translation thereof. Counsel also seeks leave to place on record a pen-drive containing the allegedly offending content.
4. Let the pen-drive be placed on record through the Registry.
5. The essence of the plaintiff’s case is that by way of the offending content, in conversation with a reporter of defendant No.2 channel, defendant No.1 has suggested that the plaintiff company indulges in strong-arm tactics and other similar wrong-doing to recover the dues against loans advanced by them.
6. Counsel submits, that as detailed in the plaint, the allegations are false;
- and amount to spreading misinformation about the plaintiff-company, apart from being defamatory.
7. Upon a prima-facie conspectus of the matter, let the plaint be registered as a suit.
8. Issue summons in the suit.
9. Mr. Tejas Karia, learned counsel appears on behalf of defendant No.3/Meta Platforms, Inc. on advance copy; accepts summons; and submits that there is no statutory provision, nor any rule, that requires defendant No.3 to vet or censor allegedly defamatory content. Counsel clarifies that defendant No.3 has no role in either the making of the utterances, or the recording or uploading of the content on the Meta platform.
10. Mr. Karia submits that Meta enjoys ‘safe harbor’ immunity under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and would be willing to comply with any direction passed by this court in that behalf.
CS(OS) 165/2024 Page 3 of 4
11. Upon the plaintiff taking requisite steps within 10 days, let summons be sent to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date before the learned Joint Registrar.
12. Let the summons indicate that the defendants are required to file written statement to the plaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons, alongwith affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff may file replication to the written statement within 30 days thereafter, alongwith affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by defendants.
13. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, for admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 22nd July
2024. 14. List before court thereafter. I.A. 4588/2024
15. By way of the present application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the plaintiff seeks an order restraining the defendants from publishing any defamatory content.
16. Issue notice. 17. Mr. Karia, learned counsel appears on behalf of defendant No.3/Meta Platforms, Inc. on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply
18. Upon the plaintiff taking steps within 10 days, let notice be sent to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date before the learned Joint Registrar.
19. Let the notice indicate that reply to the application be filed within 30 days of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed 30 days thereafter;
- with copies to the opposing counsel.
20. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings in this application on 22nd July 2024.
21. L
