Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 12544
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N. V. Anjaria, CJ
ITC LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR VINAY GUPTA – Respondent
Commercial Appeal No.72 of 2025 | Commercial Appeal No.73 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Udaya Holla, P.K. Shrikara
For the Respondents: Amee Rana, Karan Joseph
Court emphasized the importance of interim orders in defamation cases while allowing the appellant to identify further defamatory content for judicial review.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX - Defamation - Appellant sought injunction against defamatory content on social media regarding its trademark - Interim injunction granted against one respondent while vacated against another - Court retains liberty for further action on additional URLs identified by the appellant. (Paras 3.4, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Interim Orders - The court refrains from interfering with interim orders while the main suit is pending, emphasizing that rights are not finally determined. (Paras 3.5, 6.1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for defamation regarding its trademark, seeking injunction and damages. The trial court granted interim relief against one respondent while allowing the other to file a written statement.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the trial court's order, directing the removal of defamatory content and allowing the appellant to identify further URLs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should modify the interim order regarding the removal of defamatory content.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the interim order is vacated against one respondent, the appellant retains the right to identify further defamatory content for judicial consideration.
Result: Appeals disposed of with modifications.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addresses the appeals involving defamation and trademark issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court modifies the trial court's order and retains the appellant's rights to address further defamatory content. (Para 5) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
These two appeals are cognate involving similar facts and identical issues. They both arise from common order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Udaya Holla for learned advocate Mr. P.K. Shrikara for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Amee Rana for learned advocate Mr. Karan Joseph for respondent No.2, in both the appeals.
3. The appellant instituted a suit before learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court), Bengaluru (CCH-84) against the respondents in Com. O.S. No. 629 of 2024 seeking reliefs of inter alia injunction and damages, in view of defamatory content relating to the appellant's packaged wheat flour (Atta) and multigrain flour (Atta) marketed and sold under the COMAP No.73 of 2025 appellant's well-known registered trademark "AASHIRVAAD" being published and circulated by respondent No.1 on the platform being operated by respondent No.2 that is INSTAGRAM. The appellant had also filed two applications along with the plaint under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking reliefs of interim injunction against the respondents. The trial court vide order dated 24.04.2024 granted reliefs of interim injunction in favour of the appellant, as prayed for in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3.
3.1 Respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte in the suit. Respondent No. 2 appeared and filed the following applications before the trial court.
(i) I.A. No. 5 - application for recall of the order dated 24.07.2024 under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ;
(ii) I.A. No. 6 - application to modify the ex-parte ad interim order dated 24.04.2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ;
(iii) I.A. No. 7 - seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement under Section 5 of the COMAP No.73 of 2025 Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .
3.2 On 04.01.2025, the trial court passed a common order disposing of I.A.Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 as per which learned trial court has,
(i) Partly allowed I.A. No. 2 filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only against respondent No. 1;
(ii) Allowed I.A. No. 3 filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in which temporary injunction is sought only against respondent No. 1 has been allowed;
(iii) Allowed I.A.Nos. 5 and 7 filed by the respondent No. 2 to take the written statement on record;
(iv) Allowed I.A.No. 6 filed by respondent No. 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC and vacated the ad-ex-parte ad interim order dated 24.04.2024 as against Respondent No. 2.
3.3 As far as Commercial Appeal No.72 of 2025 is concerned, it relates to the order passed in I.A.No.2 which was filed by the COMAP No.73 of 2025 appellant herein. The other Commercial Appeal No.73 of 2025 is preferred by original respondent No.2 which is in relation to the order passed in I.A.No.6.
3.4 The impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Court below is reproduced below,
"IA No. 2 filed by Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, is partly allowed only against Defendant No. 1
IA No. 3 filed by Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC in which temporary injunction is sought only against Defendant No. 1, is allowed.
IA Nos. 5 and 7 filed by Defendant No.2 to take the Written Statement on record, are allowed.
IA No. 6 filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 24-04-2024 as against Defendant No. 2 is vacated.
Consequently, the following orders / directions
