The court underscored the urgency for trial courts to address applications for interim relief in defamation cases involving social media to prevent reputational harm.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs:

" WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to

A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2025 in O.S. No. 7626/2025 passed by the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-18) (Annexure H), in so far as it rejects the granting of Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Order of Temporary Injunction, At LAND 1

B) Allow the Interim Application filed by the Petitioner dated 31.10.2025 in O.S. No. 7626/2025 before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-18) (Annexure G) and grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction, and

C) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. A suit in O.S.No.7626/2025 came to be filed on 31.10.2025 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting/transmitting/publishing/ distributing/sharing any material which is false, malicious, defamatory and derogatory news concerning or relating to the plaintiff directly or indirectly. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction with the relief sought therein.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff, the trial Court has issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1 to the defendant along with suit summons and posted the case on 01.12.2025. Therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court for non passing of the orders by the trial Court on the application filed by him wherein he had sought an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them for the said relief as mentioned in Document No.5 pending disposal of the suit.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the plaintiff is in the business of supplying meat, fish and other seafood products on wholesale Business to Business basis in India. The plaintiff is also engaged in the business of packaged seafood worldwide. The plaintiff is neither in the business of investment schemes calling for public money, nor has launched any such mobile applications calling for investment.

6. It is further contended that the plaintiff is solely engaged in the business under the name and style "Captain Fresh" and has a registered trademark on the word "Captain Fresh." It also operates branches across India and globally. It is a well-known and well-recognized Company in India. It has gained an excellent reputation in the business of supplying meat, fish and other seafood products on wholesale basis.

7. The plaintiff has filed the confidential offer document Pre-Draft Red Herring Prospectus (for short, 'PDRHP') with the Securities and Exchange Commission of India (SEBI), National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) and BSE Limited (BSE). This being the state of affairs, within 45 days from the date of filing of the PDRHP, the plaintiff has come across YouTube channels unauthorisedly using the "Captain Fresh" logo, brand name, mobile applications and making various defamatory content against the plaintiff. These videos have been popularised through YouTube and Telegram channels and these videos are available till date. These videos reflect clear