Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J
Alakh Pandey – Appellant
Versus
John Doe(s) – Respondent
CS(COMM) 835/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Sai Deepak, Mohit Goel, Abhishek Kotnala, Kartikeya Tandon, Urvashi Singh, M. Mazumndar, Sidhi Pramod R.
For the Respondents: Aditya Gupta, Vani Kaushik, Sunidhi Agrahari, Madhav Khosla, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Bhawna, Ayush Kasana
The court granted procedural exemptions and extensions to the plaintiff while requiring a detailed categorization of alleged personality right violations to distinguish between commercial exploitation and protected free speech before deciding on an ad-interim injunction.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-litigation Mediation - Exemption from mandatory mediation under Section 12A - Granted based on the facts and circumstances of the case and judicial precedents.
(B) Personality Rights - Ad-interim Injunction - Requirement for specificity - Plaintiff directed to categorize alleged infractions into commercialization of personality rights and sexually vulgar content to distinguish between intellectual property protection and protected free speech (satire, caricature, or parody).
Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to exemption from pre-litigation mediation and whether an ad-interim ex-parte injunction should be granted.
O R D E R
I.A. 20744/2026 (exemption)
Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20741/2026 (exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation)
By way of the present application filed under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the plaintiff seeks exemption from attempting pre-litigation mediation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi1(2024) 5 SCC 815 and of a Division Bench of this court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd.22022 SCC OnLine Del 3529, the plaintiff is exempted from attempting pre-litigation mediation.
The application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20742/2026 (extension of time for filing court-fee)
By way of the present application filed under section 149 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks extension of time to file requisite court-fee.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
Let the requisite court-fee be filed within 02 weeks.
The application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20743/2026
By way of the present application filed under section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks time for filing the required certificate under section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
Let the required certificate be filed within 04 weeks.
The application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20745/2026 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
By way of the present application filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) read with section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks leave to file additional documents.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed.
Let the additional documents be filed within 30 days.
The relevance and admissibility of the documents so filed will be considered subsequently.
The application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20746/2026 (exemption from filing advance service upon defendants)
By way of the present application filed under Rule 22 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks exemption from serving advance copy of the suit paperbook upon the defendants.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is exempted from effecting service of advance copy of the suit paperbook upon the defendants.
Application stands disposed-of.
I.A. 20740/2026 (ad-interim ex-parte injunction)
In the course of hearing on this application, certain queries have been put to learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel is directed to present, in a tabulated form, the alleged infractions by the specific defendants that lead to 02 categories of alleged violations: first, content that amounts to commercialisation/monetisation of the plaintiff’s personality rights; and second, the content that is ex-facie sexually vulgar, and in excess of being satire, caricature, lampooning, parodies, libellous or slanderous, which (latter categories) may enjoy protection under the free-speech regime or be amenable to action outside of the personality rights regime under intellectual property law.
Learned counsel are present on behalf of defendant No. 23 – Google LLC, defendant No.27 – Telegram FZ LLC, defendant No.31 – Automatic Inc., defendants Nos. 33 and 34 – Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology respectively.
For the above purpose, re-notify on 05th August 2026 in the ‘Supplementary List’.
