Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Gati Ltd vs Google Llc & Anr on 26 February, 2020

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

$~27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 83/2020, IA No.2720/2020(u/O.XXXIX R.172 CPC),
      IA No.2721/2020(u/S.79 of IT Act), IA No.2722/2020(exemption),
      IA No.2723/2020(u/S.149 CPC), IA No.2724/2020(exemption from
      filing original documents), IA No.2725/2020(u/O.V R.9 CPC)

      GATI LTD.                                               ..... Plaintiff
                           Through:      Mr. Pavan Duggal, Mr. Mohit Raj and
                                         Mr. Shaivesh Kamra, Advs.

                                  Versus

    GOOGLE LLC & ANR                                         ..... Defendants
                  Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          ORDER

% 26.02.2020

1. The plaintiff has sued Google LLC and unknown defendant/s, (i) for permanent injunction to restrain the unknown defendant/s from defaming the plaintiff on blogspot.com, available at https://fillthedot.blogspot.com; and,

(ii) for recovery of damages from the said unknown defendant/s.

2. The plaintiff, in the plaint itself has disclosed that the Managing Director of the plaintiff Mr. Mahinder Kumar Agarwal is in litigation with his wife and two sons, including with respect to the management and control of the plaintiff and several litigations including before the NCLT, Hyderabad are pending. It is contended that on blogspot.com, the proceedings of the NCLT, Hyderabad are being falsely reported, to discredit the plaintiff and to show the plaintiff in a poor light.

3. I have at the outset drawn attention of the counsel for the plaintiff to the order dated 18th October, 2019 in CS(OS) 530/2019 titled Sriparna Tikekar vs. Gayatri Dahiya and to Suparn Pandey Vs. Gayatri Dahiya 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10765, referring to earlier judgments as well, inter alia to the effect that there is a privilege with respect to judicial proceedings and that once the proceedings are in open Court, reporting of the proceedings of the Court is but an enlargement of the principle of open Court and there can be no restraint thereagainst. It has further been observed in the said order and in the judgments referred to therein, that the relief with respect to the reporting of legal proceedings can be obtained only from the Court/Fora in which the proceedings are pending and whose proceedings are being misreported and not from another Court.

4. The counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defamation in the present case is not by the wife and sons of the Managing Director of the plaintiff with whom the plaintiff is in litigation in NCLT, Hyderabad but by unknown persons.

5. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to file a proxy battle or obtain a walk over by not impleading the real defendant/s who may be interested in contesting the claim of the plaint and by pleading unknown defendant/s.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff agrees that the plaintiff is not seeking any relief against Google LLC which is but an intermediary.

7. Though the counsel for the plaintiff states that he will implead the wife and sons of the Managing Director of the plaintiff, but once it is felt that the defamation alleged being in respect of judicial proceedings, the suit does not lie and no purpose may be served thereby.

8. At request of counsel for the plaintiff to re-consider, list on 3rd March, 2020.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

FEBRUARY 26, 2020 „ak‟..