Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19627
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J
GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
NAYANA KRISHNA – Respondent
Writ Petition No.22125/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MRINAL SHANKAR, ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT
For the Respondents: AKARSH KANADE
Defamation claims require specific pleadings describing the alleged defamatory acts; failing this, parties cannot be included in the lawsuit.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Defamation - Requirement of specific pleading - Plaintiff's suit was found to lack necessary detail for potential defamation claims against the defendant; absence of precise allegations resulted in the defendant's deletion from the suit. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Inclusion of parties - To determine necessary parties in a suit, adequate pleadings must justify their inclusion, linking their actions directly to the claims made. (Paras 6, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against various defendants, including the petitioner, without specific allegations of defamation. The petitioner contended that it was improperly included as a defendant. The court analyzed previous rulings where similar circumstances warranted the removal of the petitioner from the suit.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the lack of specific allegations in the plaint meant that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the suit. It reaffirmed that distinct entities cannot be conflated without proper justification in pleadings.
Issues: The main issues centered on whether the plaintiff’s claims sufficiently identified the petitioner’s alleged actions to justify its presence as a defendant in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that a successful defamation claim requires specific pleadings clearly identifying the defamatory content and the entities responsible for its publication. Failure to do so results in dismissal of the claims against parties not involved in the alleged conduct.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the petitioner was deleted from the suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner denied specific defamation allegations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. request to dismiss petitioner as unnecessary defendant. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner is distinct from google llc and lacks involvement in the suit's allegations. (Para 6) |
| 4. court emphasized proper pleading requirements in defamation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. affirmed distinct legal entities in defamation actions. (Para 10) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records in OS.No.6216 of 2017 on the file of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru;
(b) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 11.02.2019 on IA No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC , passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru (Annexure A hereto) and delete the Petitioner (arrayed as Defendant No.6 in OS.No.6216/2017) from the Suit."
2. Sri.Mrinal Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.6216/2017 against various entities including the petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from posting and broadcasting photos, videos and by making derogative statement against the respondent- plaintiff affecting the reputation of the plaintiff in their websites, channels and newspapers. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is defendant No.6, filed a detailed written statement denying the contents of the plaint averments and also that the suit against the petitioner is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed an application to strike off the petitioner-defendant No.6 from the array of parties in the said suit on the ground that there is no specific allegation of defamation against the petitioner nor any averment or material is placed in the plaint to substantiate that the petitioner has published, web-hosted, broadcasted, etc., the defamatory contents against the petitioner, in the absence of any specific description or instances or pleading, the arraying of petitioner as a party is an abuse of process of law and the petitioner is not a necessary party. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.J.Zakharia Sait v. T.M.Mohammed and others 1. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, while dealing with a similar issue in the case of Goldmines Telefilms Private Limited vs. Sai Entertainment Private Limited and others 2 , held that the suit is filed on the basis that by uploading some films to 1 (1990) 3 SCC 396 Suit No.502/2015 YouTube, a web service operated by the 6th defendant, YouTube LLC, a separate entity incorporated overseas, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have violated and infringed the Plaintiff's copyright; even if that is so, it does not explain why the Google India has been joined as party Defendant in the Suit.
3. It is also submitted that in the cause title of the plaint, the petitioner is wrongly described as the owner of Google and YouTube; however, the Google and YouTube are distinct entities and the petitioner-defendant No.6 is a different corporate entity registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 , (for short, 'the Act') in India. Hence, they sought for deleting the petitioner from the array of the parties. It is contended that the various contentions urged in the application were not considered by the trial Court and rejected the same under the impugned order without assigning any reasons. It is also submitted that in the similar circumstances, the trial Court considered similar applications and passed the detailed orders recording the finding that the petitioner is a different entity from Google LLC and YouTube and deleted the said petitioner from the array of parties in those suits. In support of his contentions, he has placed on record the orders passed by the trial Court in the following cases:
i. Order dated 03.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.4572/2021 in the case of Sanjana Archana Galran
