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, (“CPC”, hereinafter), 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, (“C.A”, hereinafter) 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