This

appeal

by

the

appellant-defendant

in

O.S.4202/2020 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short, the ‘trial court’) is

directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2021 passed

on I.A.No.1 filed by the respondent-plaintiff, whereby the trial

court passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the

appellant-defendant,

its

sister

concerns,

agents,

representatives, correspondents, officers, employees or any

other person, entity, in print or electronic media or via internet

or otherwise in any manner from soliciting / advertising /

exhibiting/ offering/ endorsing for sale or trade or resale of

present or future products of plaintiff - company till disposal of

the suit.

2. The material on record discloses that the

respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent

injunction restraining the appellant-defendant, its sister

concerns, agents, representatives, correspondents, officers,

employees or any other person, entity, in print or electronic

3

media or via internet or otherwise in any manner from

soliciting / advertising / exhibiting / offering / endorsing for

sale or trade or resale of present or future products of plaintiff

company. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 seeking

identical relief’s by way of temporary injunction against the

defendant. It was contended that plaintiff is a private limited

company / Direct Selling Entity(DSE) carrying on business in

direct selling of health and wellness products manufactured

by respective manufacturers after complying with all statutory

requirements. The plaintiff has obtained registration of trade

marks and is carrying on business inconsonance with the

Direct Selling Guidelines (DSG) issued by the Central

Government, which have been ratified by State Governments

including the State of Karnataka. The defendant which is a e-

commerce platform is engaged in soliciting / advertising /

exhibiting / offering / endorsing for sale of products of the

plaintiff-company without written or oral consent of the

plaintiff, which is contrary to the DSG as well as statutory

laws and Rules and the defendant has thereby enriched itself

4

at the cost of the plaintiff. It is contended that since the

repeated demands made by plaintiff to the defendant

including issuance of a legal notice dated 09.07.2020 were

not complied with by the defendant, plaintiff instituted the

instant suit.

3. The defendant is contesting the aforesaid suit and

has filed its written statement, objections, documents etc.,

inter-alia contending that the defendant is only a intermediary

and is statutorily protected under Section 79 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the I.T. Act’)

and the suit was not maintainable. It is contended that the

DSG relied upon by the plaintiff are neither ‘law’ nor have the

‘force of law; and they are merely advisory in nature and no

reliance can be placed upon the same by the plaintiff. The

defendant is not a seller within the meaning of Clause 7(6) of

the DSG and the actual sellers / infringers as alleged by the

plaintiff are both proper and necessary parties to the suit,

which is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the said

parties. The defendant has also exercised due diligence as

5

required under Section 79 of the I.T.Act as well as Rule 3 of

the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules,

2011(for short, ‘the I.T. Rules 2011’) and in view of the said

compliance, defendant is entitled to the protection granted

under the safe harbour provisions of Section 79 of the I.T.

Act. The defendant has also denied and disputed all the

allegations and claims made by the plaintiff and sought for

dismissal of I.A.No.1 and the suit.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial court proceeded to

pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.1, aggrieved by

which, defendant is before this Court by way of the present

appeal.

5. Heard Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior

Counsel along with Sri. Prashant V.G, learne