Court recognizes the need for injunctions against published defamatory statements lacking justification, balancing freedom of speech against reputational harm.

O R D E R

% 18.07.2025

1. The plaintiff-company, INCEDO Technology Solutions Limited, a global digital transformation company headquartered in New Delhi, has instituted the present suit against the defendants for damages amounting to Rs. 2.50 cr and a decree of permanent injunction. The grievance of the plaintiff-company is that defendant No. 1, a former employee who resigned from the plaintiff-company's services on 16.05.2023, has been repeatedly publishing false, defamatory, and malicious statements against the plaintiff-company and its senior management on LinkedIn, which is hosted and operated by defendant No. 2.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff-company that defendant No. 1 was employed with the plaintiff-company from 2016 until her resignation on

16.05.2023, at which time she was serving as Assistant Manager – Delivery Excellence. During the course of her employment, defendant No. 1 had raised certain complaints of sexual harassment against three individuals within the plaintiff-company. These complaints were duly referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) constituted under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 . The plaintiff-company states that the ICC, after conducting a thorough inquiry, found the allegations to be unsubstantiated in respect of two individuals. As regards the third, the ICC held that the complaint was beyond the limitation period and no preliminary evidence of continued harassment was found. However, the ICC did note some objectionable conduct and recommended limited disciplinary action, which the plaintiff-company implemented. The ICC’s report was accepted and was not challenged by any party at the time.

3. The plaintiff-company submits that nearly a year after her resignation, in May 2024, defendant No. 1 commenced a targeted campaign of publishing defamatory content against the plaintiff-company and its senior leadership on her LinkedIn profile. According to the plaintiff-company, defendant No. 1 published several offensive and baseless posts that included serious and scandalous allegations such as branding the leadership of the plaintiff-company as a “molester and harasser group,” claiming she was “kicked out” and “forced to resign,” and alleging that bribes were offered to silence her. It is specifically stated that between 23.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 alone, defendant No. 1 made 84 public posts, out of which 77 directly named and defamed the plaintiff-company.

4. These posts imputed that the plaintiff-company does not follow workplace safety norms, has a toxic work culture, and accused its CEO of being corrupt and a womanizer, among other damaging statements including allegations of cyber stalking and unlawful surveillance.

5. Upon discovering these defamatory publications, the plaintiff-company issued a legal notice dated 13.05.2024 to defendant No. 1, calling upon her to cease and desist from making such statements. The notice was served on her verified email address, which defendant No. 1 acknowledged publicly on LinkedIn in a post dated 14.05.2024. The defendant, therefore, had full knowledge of the proceedings.

6. The plaintiff-company moved this Court, which by its order dated 30.05.2024 granted an interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from making or publishing any further offending material. Subsequently, by order dated 06.08.2024, the Court directed defendant No. 1 to take down two specific posts containing direct insinuations against the plaintiff-company’s CEO and Cyber Security Head