2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ
TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
NEWS LAUNDRY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM)-268/2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hrishikesh Baruah, Kumar Kshitij, Pragya Agarwal, Yashaswy Ghosh, Nishtha Sachan
For the Respondents: Rajshekhar Rao, Bani Dikshit, Uddhav Khanna, Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Rohan Ahuja, Amishi Sodani, Deepak Gogia, Aadhar Nautiyal, Shivangi Kohli
In defamation and disparagement claims, a prima facie case of harm to reputation with ex-facie disparaging statements tilts the balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff, warranting interim injunction despite defences of fair dealing or justification.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Interim injunction - Principle of balance of convenience - Irreparable injury - Mere availability of quantified damages does not negate irreparable harm; injury must be one that cannot be adequately compensated by damages - Court must weigh competing possibilities and likelihood of injury - Appellate court’s scope of interference limited to cases where discretion exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or based on misapplication of settled legal principles. (Paras 31, 91-93)
(B) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 52(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) and 52(1)(a)(i) - Fair dealing - Permitted for criticism, review, or reporting of current events - Use must be necessary, not excessive, and must not piggyback on another’s work - Transformative use is not a recognised defence under Indian law - Whether use constitutes fair dealing is a fact-intensive inquiry to be determined at trial. (Paras 48-58)
(C) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 39 and 52 - Fair dealing in broadcast reproduction rights - Excerpts used for bona fide review, teaching or research - Protection extends to broadcasts - Same fact-intensive test applies. (Para 50)
(D) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) - Jurisdiction - Intellectual property rights disputes are commercial disputes - Non-commercial claims arising out of the same IP can be tried together - Composite suit permissible; explanation does not restrict jurisdiction. (Paras 39-44) (E) Disparagement - Principles - Statement must specifically denigrate claimant’s product; representation must be likely to mislead or confuse reasonable consumer; mere praise of own product not actionable - Intent, manner, storyline relevant - Use of terms like “shit reporters”, “shit show”, “high on weed or opium” ex-facie disparaging and defamatory - Such remarks go beyond legitimate criticism. (Paras 66-70, 73-78, 99) (F) Defamation - Interim injunction - Bonnard standard - Court must exercise exceptional caution due to right to free speech - Defence of justification or fair comment does not automatically preclude injunction; court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm - Malice can be inferred from nature of statements. (Paras 71-73, 79-83)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a company operating television channels and social media platforms, filed a suit alleging that the Defendants, through their digital news platform, had infringed its copyright by reproducing portions of its broadcasts and had made defamatory and disparaging statements about the Plaintiff and its journalists. The Plaintiff sought interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned Single Judge found a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement but held that balance of convenience lay with the Defendants and no irreparable injury would be caused, and dismissed the injunction application. Both parties appealed; the Plaintiff challenged dismissal of injunction, the Defendants challenged the finding of prima facie case.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s finding that a prima facie case of commercial disparagement and defamation was made out regarding specific statements such as “shit reporters”, “shit show”, “high on weed or opium”, and “Your punctuation is as bad as your journalism”. However, the Single Judge erred in applying the balance of convenience and irreparable harm tests. The Court held that the presence of quantified damages does not automatically negate irreparable injury; the injury to reputation cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiff as both parties operate in the same media industry and the Defendants’ statements would cause disproportionate harm. The appeal was partly allowed directing removal of the identified disparaging statements from all platforms until final disposal of the suit. Copyright infringement and fair dealing issues left for trial.
Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the learned Single Judge correctly applied the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable harm while refusing interim injunction; (ii) whether the findings on prima facie case of defamation and disparagement were sustainable; (iii) whether the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to try the composite suit involving copyright, defamation, and disparagement claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while evaluating interim injunction, the balance of convenience must be assessed by weighing the likely harm to each party; the mere fact that the defendant has raised defences of fair dealing or justification does not tilt the balance in its favour. Irreparable harm is not negated by the availability of damages if the injury cannot be adequately compensated. The defamatory and disparaging statements identified were ex-facie without any independent standard and constituted an unprovoked attack on the Plaintiff’s reputation, thus warranting interim removal. Result : Appeal partly allowed; Respondents directed to remove the specified disparaging statements from all platforms; observations not to prejudice the trial court; no order as to costs. (Paras 98-102)
JUDGMENT
20.03.2026
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
1. The present cross appeals have been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in CS (COMM) No. 551 of 2021, whereby the application filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal are referred to by their respective designations in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. Thus, the “Appellant” is referred to as “Plaintiff” and the “Respondents” are referred to as “Defendants”.
Brief factual matrix
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief factual matrix necessary for the adjudication of the present dispute is as follows.
4. The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and operates prominent television channels, namely, “AajTak”, “AajTak HD”, “India Today Television”, and “Good News TV”, as well as several social media platforms. The Plaintiff is part of the “India Today Group” and is engaged in broadcasting, publishing, e-commerce, and other related activities through its constituent companies. The Plaintiff claims that its channels and allied services have become household names, enjoying wide recognition among the public at large.
5. The Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company, incorporated on 04.05.2011 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant avers that it is an independent, reader-supported news media company and claims to be an innovative news and media house, founded on the mission of reporting, critiquing, and reviewing news media.
6. In simple terms, the present dispute concerns alleged disparagement and defamation of the Plaintiff company by the Defendants. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants, through various programmes aired on their social media and digital platforms under the name “Newslaundry” have tarnished the reputation of the Plaintiff and defamed it.
7. In addition to the allegations of defamation and disparagement, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by reproducing and publishing portion of original works and telecasts from the Plaintiff’s news channels.
8. Thus, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright and sought the removal of defamatory or disparaging content, along with other appropriate relief(s) before the learned Single Judge.
9. The learned Single Judge observed that a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement was made out against the Defendants. However, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Defendants and that no irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff in the absence of an interim injunction.
10. Consequently, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.
11. Hence, the present cross-appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff challenging the dismissal of the injunction application.
12. The Defendants have challenged the impugned judgment, particularly with respect to the finding that a prima facie case of defamation and disparagement was made out against them.
Rival Submissions Before Us
13. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, submitted that the commercial product of the Plaintiff consists of original ‘cinematograph films’ and ‘sound recordings’, which are owned by the Plaintiff as its copyrighted works. To substantiate the claim of copyright ownership, Mr. Baruah referred to the significant expenditure incurred in creating these works, as purportedly evidenced by a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, indicating the total production cost amounting to several crores for FY 2019-2020 and Rs. 92.49 crores for FY 2020-2021. It was also asserted that there has been no denial of this asse
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
