Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
Nxtquantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
John Doe – Respondent
CS(COMM) 429/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashim Vachher, Piyush Paswan, Sonali Karwasrajoon, Kunal Lakra, Saiba M Rajpal
For the Respondents: None
In a suit for disparagement, the plaintiff must prima facie establish that the impugned statements are false, made with malice, and cause special damage. Absent verifiable technical evidence, unsubstantiated claims against a product that result in actual or potential financial loss constitute actionable disparagement warranting interim injunctive relief.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Pre-Institution Mediation - Exemption sought in matters contemplating urgent interim relief - Court held that exemption is granted in light of settled law regarding urgency. (Para 2)
(B) Commercial Suits - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction - Disparagement - Essential ingredients include demonstrating that statements are untrue/misleading, made with malice, and result in special damage - Court must prima facie appreciate if statements affect credibility resulting in financial losses - Mere assertions without technical examination or verification constitute potential disparagement. (Paras 38, 39, 41, 44)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, a technology company and its key personnel, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendants for publishing videos on social media platforms that allegedly contained false, defamatory, and disparaging statements regarding their products and business practices. Plaintiffs asserted the content aimed to damage their commercial reputation and brand value through malicious claims about software security and data privacy.
Findings of Court:
Upon review of the transcripts, the Court found the content lacked verifiable technical analysis to support the negative claims made by the defendants. The Court observed that while fair criticism is permissible, these statements appeared to unfairly target the plaintiffs, leading to potential financial damage without empirical basis. The balance of convenience remained with the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues were whether the impugned online content met the legal threshold for disparagement and whether a prima facie case was established for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent further financial and reputational harm.
Ratio Decidendi: An action for disparagement requires establishing that the impugned statements are false/misleading, malicious, and result in special damage. Since the evaluation presented in the videos was found to be untested and unverified, causing potential commercial harm, an injunction was warranted to protect the plaintiffs' economic interests.
Result: Application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction allowed; defendants restrained from publishing further disparaging information.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and interim applications in commercial suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 2. factual basis for ex-parte ad-interim injunction against alleged disparagement. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. legal standard and prima facie evaluation of product disparagement. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 4. grant of relief and directions for suit procedure. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
O R D E R
I.A. 11319/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from instituting Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “CC Act”).
2. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of Pre-Institution Mediation is granted.
3. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11320/2026 (Seeking extension of time to file Court Fees)
4. This is an application under Sections 148 & 149 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs seeking extension of time in paying requisite Court Fees.
5. Since the court fees are stated to have already been affixed, the present application has become infructuous.
6. The application is disposed of.
I.A.11321/2026 (Additional Documents)
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
8. The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within thirty (30) days.
9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. No.11322/2026 (Exemption from advance service to the Defendants)
10. This is an application filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendants.
11. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that there is a real and imminent likelihood that the defendants may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal or suppress its infringing materials/impugned videos.
12. For the reasons stated, application is allowed.
13. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 11323/2026 (Exemption from filing legal proceeding certificates)
14. The present is an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking exemption from filing Legal Proceedings Certificates in respect of the registered Trade Marks relied upon by the plaintiffs in the present Petition.
15. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have not been in a position to file the Legal Proceedings Certificates and undertake to file the same during the pendency of the present Suit.
16. In view of the undertaking, the plaintiffs are permitted to file the relevant Legal Proceedings Certificate within 6 weeks.
17. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
I.A. 11324/2026 (Exemption from filing typed/clear copies of the documents)
18. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing typed/clear copies of the documents.
19. Allowed subject to just exemptions. However, the clear and typed/translated copies of the documents with proper margins of the dim annexures be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.
20. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 11318/2026 (Interim Injunction)
21. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.
22. Plaintiff no.1/NxtQuantum Shift Technologies India Private Limited is stated to be a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act,
