Karnataka High Court
Itc Limited vs Mr Vinay Gupta on 15 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB
COMAP No. 72 of 2025
C/w
COMAP No.73 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2025
C/W
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.73 OF 2025
IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.72 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ITC LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 37
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 071
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR
SWETHA ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
KRISHNAN ITC LIMITED
Location: High FOODS DIVISION, NO. 18
Court of BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
Karnataka MARUTHISEVA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 005
REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. RAGHAVAN KALYANARAMAN VENKATA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.K. SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB
COMAP No. 72 of 2025
C/w
COMAP No.73 of 2025
AND:
1. MR VINAY GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
SON OF MR. SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA
HAVING HIS ADDRESS AT
H. NO. 384, SECTOR 43,
GOLF COURSE ROAD,
GALLERIA DLF-IV,
GURUGRAM,
HARYANA - 122 009
2. META PLATFORMS, INC.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1601
WILLOW ROAD,
MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA 94025,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMEE RANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON
ORDER DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN COM.OS NO.
629/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE LEARNED LXXXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT), BENGALURU (CCH 84) (VIDE ANNEXURE A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 2 FILED BY THE APPELLANT
UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CPC IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB
COMAP No. 72 of 2025
C/w
COMAP No.73 of 2025
IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.73 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. ITC LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN THE
MEANING F THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 37
JAWAHARALAL NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA - 700 071
ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ITC LIMITED FOODS
DIVISION NO.18
BANASAVADI MAIN ROAD
MARUTHISEVA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 005
REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVAN KAILANARAMAN VENKATA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.K. SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR VINAY GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
SON OF MR SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA
HAVING HIS ADDRESS
AT H NO.384, SECTOR 43,
GOLF COURSE ROAD,
GALLERIA DLF -IV
GURUGRAM HARYANA - 122 009
2. META PLATFORMS INC
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB
COMAP No. 72 of 2025
C/w
COMAP No.73 of 2025
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 1601
WILLOW ROAD, MENLO PARK
CALIFORNIA - 940 25
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMEE RANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025,
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON
ORDER DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 6 IN COM.OS NO.
629/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE LEARNED LXXXIII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT), BENGALURU (CCH 84) (VIDE ANNEXURE A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 6 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF THE CPC AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB
COMAP No. 72 of 2025
C/w
COMAP No.73 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) These two appeals are cognate involving similar facts and identical issues. They both arise from common order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Udaya Holla for learned advocate Mr. P.K. Shrikara for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Amee Rana for learned advocate Mr. Karan Joseph for respondent No.2, in both the appeals.
3. The appellant instituted a suit before learned LXXXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Commercial Court), Bengaluru (CCH-84) against the respondents in Com. O.S. No. 629 of 2024 seeking reliefs of inter alia injunction and damages, in view of defamatory content relating to the appellant's packaged wheat flour (Atta) and multigrain flour (Atta) marketed and sold under the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 appellant's well-known registered trademark "AASHIRVAAD" being published and circulated by respondent No.1 on the platform being operated by respondent No.2 that is INSTAGRAM. The appellant had also filed two applications along with the plaint under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking reliefs of interim injunction against the respondents. The trial court vide order dated 24.04.2024 granted reliefs of interim injunction in favour of the appellant, as prayed for in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3. 3.1 Respondent No.1 was placed ex-parte in the suit. Respondent No. 2 appeared and filed the following applications before the trial court.
(i) I.A. No. 5 - application for recall of the order dated 24.07.2024 under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
(ii) I.A. No. 6 - application to modify the ex-parte ad interim order dated 24.04.2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
(iii) I.A. No. 7 - seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement under Section 5 of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3.2 On 04.01.2025, the trial court passed a common order disposing of I.A.Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 as per which learned trial court has,
(i) Partly allowed I.A. No. 2 filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only against respondent No. 1;
(ii) Allowed I.A. No. 3 filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in which temporary injunction is sought only against respondent No. 1 has been allowed;
(iii) Allowed I.A.Nos. 5 and 7 filed by the respondent No. 2 to take the written statement on record;
(iv) Allowed I.A.No. 6 filed by respondent No. 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC and vacated the ad-ex-parte ad interim order dated 24.04.2024 as against Respondent No. 2.
3.3 As far as Commercial Appeal No.72 of 2025 is concerned, it relates to the order passed in I.A.No.2 which was filed by the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 appellant herein. The other Commercial Appeal No.73 of 2025 is preferred by original respondent No.2 which is in relation to the order passed in I.A.No.6.
3.4 The impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Court below is reproduced below, "IA No. 2 filed by Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, is partly allowed only against Defendant No. 1. IA No. 3 filed by Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC in which temporary injunction is sought only against Defendant No. 1, is allowed. IA Nos. 5 and 7 filed by Defendant No.2 to take the Written Statement on record, are allowed. IA No. 6 filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 24-04- 2024 as against Defendant No. 2 is vacated. Consequently, the following orders / directions are passed:
(i) It is held that the written statement of Defendant No.2 filed on 21-10-2024 is taken on record.
(ii) Temporary injunction as prayed for in IA No.2 is partly granted only against Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 is directed to remove, take down, and -9- NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 delete defamatory content published by Defendant No.1 on the social media platform Instagram operated by Defendant No.2, as detailed in the suit schedule, including any re-upload, re-share, or variation thereof, during the pendency of the suit. Additionally, Defendant No. 1 is directed to take down, disable, and delete any further/other defamatory content in relation to the plaintiff's registered trademarks products, during the pendency of the suit.
(iii) It is clarified that, although the interim order is vacated against Defendant No.2, the plaintiff shall have the liberty, at any time during the pendency of the present suit, to file a memo identifying any additional URLs or social media posts by Defendant No.1 on platforms operated by Defendant No.2, that are defamatory to the plaintiff. Upon filing of such memo and after hearing Defendant No.2, the court will pass appropriate orders as stated in Paragraph 36 supra.
(iv) Temporary injunction is granted as prayed for in IA No.3, restraining Defendant No.1 from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks or any visually similar variants thereof or depicting the plaintiff's registered trademarks or visually similar variants thereof in any manner, during the pendency of the suit.
Ordered accordingly.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 Since the written statement of Defendant No.2 is taken on record, for inspection of documents and statement of admission and denial of documents, call on 18-01-2025."
3.5 There is no gainsaying that the aforesaid order which is sought to be challenged by filing the present appeals, is an interim order. The Court would not be inclined to interfere with the interim order when the Commericial Suit is pending at large before the court below to be tried on merits and that rights of either of the parties are not finally determined.
4. However, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aggrieved in particular by the following observations contained in paragraph 36 of the order.
"However, liberty has to be reserved to the plaintiff to approach the court by filing memo identifying any other URLs / social media posts by Defendant No. 1 that are defamatory to the plaintiff and in such a case, after hearing Defendant No. 2, the court will pass appropriate orders on any such memos that may be filed, directing the takedown of such URLs mentioned therein, if it is shown through production of story-board of such URLs that, such social media posts are similar or re-uploads of Suit Schedule URLs / social media posts."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025 4.1 Learned senior advocate for the appellant thereafter referred to and relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Facebook Inc. vs. Surinder Malik and others [(2019) SCC Online Del 9887] and submitted that if the clarifications are made in terms of what is observed in paragraph 112 of the said judgment with necessary changes to suit the facts of the case, the appellant would be satisfied. The other side had no good reason to oppose the suggestion. The clarifications and modifications suggested by the appellant are even otherwise reasonable and the request could be acceded to in that regard.
5. In the aforesaid view, the present appeals are disposed of by directing that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court below shall operate subject to following observations and clarifications,
(i) The defendants are directed to take down, remove block, restrict/disable access, by domestic level operators in Indian domain, to all such videos/weblinks/URLs in the list annexed to the plaint, which have been uploaded from I.P. addresses within India.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025
(ii) Insofar as the URLs/links in the list annexed to the plaint which were uploaded from outside India are concerned, the defendants are directed to block access and disable them from being viewed in the Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access the same.
(iii) Upon the plaintiffs discovering that any further URLs contain defamatory/offending content as discussed in the present order, the plaintiffs shall notify the platforms, which shall then take down/block access to the said URLs either on a global basis, or for the Indian domain, depending on from where the content has been uploaded in terms of (i) and (ii) above.
(iv) If the defendant - platforms, upon receiving notice from the plaintiffs are of the opinion that the material/content is not defamatory or violative, they shall intimate the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs would seek their remedies in accordance with law.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18166-DB COMAP No. 72 of 2025 C/w COMAP No.73 of 2025
6. The impugned order is modified accordingly and shall operate as per the modifications observed, to govern the rights and obligations of the parties.
6.1 This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the either side.
6.2 All contentions are kept open to be raised in the suit by both the parties as may be available in law.
7. Both the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30