FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021 Page 1 of 3

$~S-27

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021 & CM APPLs. 36520-521/2021

ANIRUDDHA MALPANI

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate with

Mr. Yadunath Bhargavan, Ms. Rao

Vishwaja, Ms. Divya Prasad and

Mr. Tushar Gupta, Advocates.

versus

WHITEHAT EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ms. Eva

Bishwas and Mr. Raghav Kacker,

Advocates.

%

Date of Decision: 21^st October, 2021

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1.

Present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant challenging

the order dated 27

MANMOHAN, J. (Oral) \

th November, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge, in I.A

No. 1092/2020 in Commercial Suit No.518/2020, whereby the learned Single

Judge was pleased to pass an ad interim injunction order in the application

filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of

the Code of Civil Procedure.

2021:DHC:3307-DB

FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021 Page 2 of 3

2.

It is pertinent to mention that by way of the impugned order, the

appellant has been restrained from posting, publishing, sharing any content

which is defamatory, derogatory or deprecatory in nature to the Respondent,

its management or employees. The appellant was also directed to take down

twelve tweets within forty eight hours of passing of the impugned order.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge

ought to have considered that the "blanket" order given against the Appellant

is violative of her fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression

which is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution as laid down by the

Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v Union of

India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.

4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel for respondent vehemently

disputes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. He

further states that the injunction order is not being complied with by the

defendant/appellant.

5.

A perusal of the paperbook reveals that what is impugned in the present

appeal is an ad interim injunction order. The application for ad interim

injunction is pending and yet to be disposed of. Further, though the

respondent/plaintiff has filed applications being I.A. 5277/2021 (under Order

XXXIX Rule 4) and I.A. 5278/2021 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC), yet the

same have never been pressed before the learned Single Judge and no notice

has been issued till date. This Court also finds that the matter is now listed

before the learned Single Judge on 12^th

6.

Consequently, this Court disposes of the present appeal with a direction

to the learned Single Judge to decide I.A. No. 1092/2020, I.A. 5277/2021 and

I.A. 5278/2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within twelve weeks

November, 2021.

2021:DHC:3307-DB

FAO(OS) (COMM) 134/2021 Page 3 of 3

from the next date of hearing. At the same time, this Court clarifies that an

interim order of injunction cannot be flouted on the ground that the Court that

passed the injunction order did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try

the suit. [See: Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Another Vs. Hind Rubber

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 443].

7.

With the aforesaid direction, the present appeal along with pending

applications stands disposed of.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

OCTOBER 21, 2021

TS

2021:DHC:3307-DB