Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5183
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Akshay Tanna – Appellant
Versus
John Doe – Respondent
CS(COMM) 92/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajiv Nayar, Abhimanyu Chopra, Cheryl Fernandez, Aman Choudhary, Kushagra Jain, Saurav Seth
For the Respondents: None
The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect the Plaintiff's personality and publicity rights, holding that the impersonation of a person by unknown entities to conduct a fraudulent investment scam constitutes a violation of these rights, warranting urgent judicial intervention to prevent irreparable loss and protect the public.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Personality rights and publicity rights - Infringement - Impersonation - Plaintiff sought ex-parte ad-interim injunction against unknown persons (John Doe) and others for creating fake social media profiles and messaging groups using the Plaintiff’s image, likeness, and association to run an investment scam, thereby threatening public interest and eroding the Plaintiff's reputation. (Para 22.1, 22.5, 24)
(B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-institution mediation - Exemption granted in cases of urgent interim relief. (Para 9)
(C) Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 - Rule 24 of Chapter XI - Electronic evidence - Reception on CD/DVD/Medium encrypted with a hash value. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a senior executive at a leading private equity firm, discovered multiple fake social media profiles and messaging groups impersonating him and claiming association with his firm to solicit investments from the public. The perpetrators utilized his name, photograph, and deepfake videos to conduct an investment scam.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The fraudulent activities posed a significant risk of irreparable loss to the public and potential damage to the Plaintiff's reputation. The balance of convenience was in favour of the Plaintiff.
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the perpetrators using his personality rights and likeness for fraudulent activities.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Plaintiff’s personality rights and goodwill are being misappropriated by unknown entities to conduct fraudulent investment scams, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm and protect the public interest.
Result: Application for ad-interim injunction allowed; directions issued for blocking of fraudulent profiles and URLs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and exemption for electronic evidence and pre-institution mediation in commercial suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. directions for registration of suit, service of summons, and timelines for pleadings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. assessment of injury to publicity rights and reputation through online impersonation and fraudulent scams. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 4. grant of ad-interim injunction to stop misappropriation of personality rights. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Considering the particular facts and circumstances of the present case, Plaintiff is exempted from serving advance copy of the suit paper-book on the Defendants.
2. Disposed of.
I.A. 2258/2024(seeking exemption)
3. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
4. Plaintiff shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
5. Disposed of.
I.A. 2259/2024(seeking leave to file additional documents)
6. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
7. If Plaintiff wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, they shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the said Act.
8. Disposed of.
I.A. 2261/2024(seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation)
9. As the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi ,, (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382.) exemption from attempting pre-institution mediation is granted.
10. Disposed of.
I.A. 2262/2024(seeking additional time to file court fees)
11. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Plaintiff is granted six weeks’ time to file deficient court fees.
12. Disposed of.
I.A. 2263/2024(seeking urgent directions to file documents in pen drive)
13. Rule 24 of Chapter XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 makes it clear that electronic records can be received in CD/DVD/Medium encrypted with a hash value. The said Rule is extracted below: -
“24. Reception of electronic evidence -A party seeking to tender any electronic record shall do so in a CD/ DVD/ Medium, encrypted with a hash value, the details of which shall be disclosed in a separate memorandum, signed by the party in the form of an affidavit. This will be tendered along with the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium in the Registry. The electronic record in the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium will be uploaded on the server of the Court by the Computer Section and kept in an electronic folder which shall be labeled with the cause title, case number and the date of document uploaded on the server. Thereafter, the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium will be returned to the party on the condition that it shall be produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents and as and when directed by the Court/ Registrar. The memorandum disclosing the hash value shall be separately kept by the Registry on the file. The compliance with this rule will not be construed as dispensing with the compliance with any other law for the time being in force including Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” [Emphasis supplied]
14. Thus, the Registry may receive electronic record on CD-ROM so long as it is encrypted with a hash value or in any other non-editable format. Accordingly, let the video recording contained in CD-ROM be placed in the electronic record of the present suit in a format which is non-editable, so that the same can be viewed by the Court during hearing.
15. Disposed of.
CS(COMM) 92/2024
16. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
17. At the outset, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Counsel for Plaintiff, on instructions, states that at several places in the plaint, as well as in the accompanying applications, the referen
