Delhi High Court - Orders
Cpc) Star India Private Limited vs 7Movierulz.Tc & Ors on 21 March, 2023
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 604/2022 & I.A. 14117/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1& 2 of CPC) STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Yatinder Garg, Mr. Akshay and Ms.Rimjhim Tiwari, Advocates versus 7MOVIERULZ.TC & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Mrinal Ojha, Mr.Debarshi Dutta and Mr. Aayush Kevlani, Advocates for defendant No.22 Mr.Piyush Beriwal and Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocates for defendants No.38 and 39. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL ORDER
% 21.03.2023
1. In terms of the order dated 1st February, 2023, the counsel for the defendants no.38 and 39 were directed to place on record a copy of the status report filed by the said defendants in CS(COMM) 567/2022. Counsel for the defendants no.38 and 39 submits that he has received a copy of the aforesaid report today and seeks time to file the same. However, a copy of the same is handed over by the counsel for the plaintiff in court today.
2. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the aforesaid status report are set out below:
"2. That, by way of the instant (further) Status Report, MeitY Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 604/2022 Signing Date:22.03.2023 Page 1 of15:09:08 3 craves leave to apprise this Hon'ble Court of the action that has subsequently been taken by MeitY in terms of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 09.11.2022 against the five (05) Domain Name Registrars (hereinafter referred to as "DNRs") that are the subject-matter of the present proceedings, namely:
i. NameCheap Inc./Defendant No.13 ii. Dynadot, LLC./Defendant No.14 iii. Tucows Inc./Defendant No.16 iv. Gransys.r.o./Defendant No.17 v. Sarek Oy/Defendant No.18
3. That, on 10.03.2023, the competent authority in MeitY had directed the matter pertaining to the aforesaid DNRs to be forwarded to the Designated Officer under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Blocking Rules 2009") for immediate action thereon. The copy of the said IT Blocking Rules is at Annexure D-29/A.
4. That, thereafter, the Designated Officer has issued a direction (no. 6(7)/2023-69A, dated 10.03.2023) to the Department of Telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as "DoT") in the Govt. of India communicating the latter to block access to the website URLs of the five (05) offending DNRs mentioned above. The said communication was issued to DoT pursuant to this Hon'ble Court's order dated 09.11.2022, read with rule 10 of the IT Blocking Rules, 2009. The copy of the said communication issued by the Designated Officer to DoT is at Annexure D-29/B.
5. Based on the MeitY's communication, DoT has issued order dated 10.03.2023 (No.813-7/25/2011-DS (Vol.-IX) dated 10.03.2023 to the Internet Service Licensees to block access to the website URLs of the five (05) offending DNRs mentioned above. The copy of the said order issued by the DoT to the Internet Service Licensees is at Annexure D-29/C."
3. It is noted in the order dated 14th December, 2022 that other than the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 604/2022 Signing Date:22.03.2023 Page 2 of15:09:08 3 defendants no.23 and 25, all the other DNRs that are parties in the present suit were also parties in the aforesaid suit. Accordingly, the counsel for the plaintiff submits that similar directions may also be passed in the present suit.
4. The relevant directions passed by the Court in CS(COMM) 567/2022 on 9th November, 2022, are set out below:
"11. In the backdrop of the above discussion, insofar as the above listed DNRs, which are not giving effect to the orders of this Court, i.e., NameCheap Inc./Defendant No.13, Dynadot, LLC/Defendant No.14, Tucows Inc./Defendant No.16, Gransy s.r.o./Defendant No.17, and Sarek Oy/Defendant No.18, since DoT and MeitY are present before this Court, they are directed to immediately take action within one week against these DNRs for non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court. The authorities shall also look into the question as to whether these DNRs ought to be permitted to continue to offer their goods and services in India, if they are not giving effect to orders of Indian Courts and not complying with the applicable laws under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the 2021 Rules."
5. In view of the above, the defendants no.38 and 39 are directed to take appropriate action against the defendant no.23, Gandi SAS and defendant no.25, NameSilo, LLC, for non-compliance of the order dated 2nd September, 2022 and file status report within four weeks from today.
6. List on 11th July, 2023.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
MARCH 21, 2023 dk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 604/2022 Signing Date:22.03.2023 Page 3 of15:09:08 3