IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.09.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR O.S.A.Nos.155 and 156 of 2024 AND C.M.P.Nos.19552, 19573 and 19575 of 2024 Nirmal Kumar .. Appellant in both OSAs Vs.
1.V.Senthil Balaji
2.YouTube LLC Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer Suraj Rao Google LLC India Liaison Office Unit Unit No.26, The Executive Centre Level 8, DLF Centre Sansad Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001
3.X Corporation Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer Vinay Prakash
1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94102 United States of America (Substituted vide order dt.9.11.23 passed in A.No.5252 of 2023)
Previously known as Twitter Inc.
Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer Vinay Prakash
8th Floor, The Estate
121, Dickenson Road Bengaluru 560 042
4.Ananda Vikatan Digital Private limited Rep. by its Managing Director Srinivasan
757, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 .. Respondents in both OSAs Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Order XLI of CPC against the common order dated 12.04.2023 passed in O.A.No.731 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022 and A.No.5164 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Praveennath in both OSAs For 1st Respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson in both OSAs
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
These appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A.No.731 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of
2022 and A.No.5164 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022.
2.The appellant in both the appeals is the 1st defendant in the suit in C.S.No.244 of 2022 filed by the 1st respondent for the following reliefs :
“(a) to direct the 1st defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) as damages along with interest @8% p.a. from date of decree till date of realisation;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from in any way making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to L herein or its contents and/or any other defamatory statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos which causes damage or tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and/or in any other media and/or in any other manner;
(c) mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove all the defamatory tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to L herein from YouTube, Twitter and all media accounts of the 1st defendant;
(d) mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove the video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its platform www.youtube.com;
(e) mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to remove all the tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to F and H to L herein from its platform www.twitter.com;
(f) mandatory injunction directing the 4th defendant to remove the video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its YouTube channel www.youtube.com or any other media;”
3.Pending suit, the plaintiff filed O.A.No.731 of 2022 for granting interim injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant from in any way making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets and video mentioned in the Schedule A to L therein or its contents and/or any other defamatory statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos which causes damage or tends to lower the applicant/plaintiff reputation on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and/or in any other media and/or in any other manner pending disposal of the suit. He also filed A.No.5164 of 2022 for interim direction directing the appellant/1st defendant to remove all the defamatory tweets and video mentioned in the Schedule A to L therein from YouTube, Twitter and all media accounts of the appellant/1st defendant pending disposal of the suit. These applications were also heard with some other applications for interim directions against the other defendants in A.Nos.5161 to
5163 of 2022 and A.No.5913 of 2022.
4.The plaintiff is the Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellant, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, is the Tamil Nadu State President of BJP for IT and Social Media. The appellant published a series of tweets and the plaintiff contended that all these tweets and videos published in social platform is to lower the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the Society. The appellant defended the Interlocutary Applications mainly on the ground that there is sufficient material in the public domain to believe that the allegations against the plaintiff are justified.
5.The learned Single Judge disposed of all the applications in the following lines :
“33.In the result, these applications are disposed of as follows:-
(a) The first defendant is restrained by an order of interim injunction from publishing or disseminating, on any media, publications that directly or indirectly allege corruption on the part of the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. This order will not, however, stand
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.