Karnataka High Court
Twitter Inc. vs Itc Limited on 13 November, 2018
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.48728/2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
TWITTER INC.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE/
HEADQUARTER AT 1355
MARKET STREET
SUITE-900
CALIFORNIA 94103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, ADV. FOR
SRI NAVEEN SURIYA, ADV.)
AND:
1. ITC LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 37,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA-700071
ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ITC LIMITED,
FOODS BUSINESS DIVISION
NO.18, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD
2
MARUTHISEVA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560005
2. KHABARSAMAY
AN ONLINE NEWS AGENCY HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT GOYAL PLAZA
2ND FLOOR, SEVOKE ROAD
SILIGURI-734001
WEST BENGAL
REP. BY PROPRIETOR
MR. SANJAY SHARMA
EMAIL:[email protected] &
[email protected]
3. MR. SANJAY SHARMA
PROPRIETOR
KHABARSAMAY
GOYAL PLAZA
2ND FLOOR, SEVOKE ROAD
SILIGURI-734001
WEST BENGAL
4. GOOGLE INC.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE/
HEADQUARTERS AT 1600
AMPHITHEATHRE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CALIFORNIA-94043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5. YOUTUBE, LLC
A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION
HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
AT 901, CHERRY AVE
SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3
6. FACEBOOK INC.,
A COMPANY INCORPORTED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE/
HEADQUARTERS AT 1601
WILLOW ROAD
MENLO PARK
CALIFORNIA-94025
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
7. ASHOK KUMAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO PETITIONER
ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADV. FOR
M/S. DUA ASSTS. ADVS. FOR C/R1)
********
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2018 AT ANNEX-A
PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE I.A.NO. VI IN O.S.NO. 26455/2017 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID I.A. AND
ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE DELETION OF PETITIONER
FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES IN O.S.NO. 26455/2017.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 03.09.2018 passed on I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.26455/2017 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which I.A. filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to delete defendant No.6 from the array of parties is rejected.
2. The petitioner is defendant No.6 and respondent No.1 is plaintiff in O.S.No.26455/2017 filed for perpetual injunction and permanent injunction. On service of notice defendant No.6 appeared before the Court and filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to delete defendant No.6 from the array of parties on the ground that defendant No.6 - TWITTER INC is neither proper nor necessary party to the suit, as it operates only in USA and not outside USA. Insofar as 5 India is concerned TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY operates, which could be a necessary party. The plaintiff filed objection to the application filed by defendant No.6 contending that defendant No.6 - TWITTER INC is necessary party and it is part of TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY. The trial Court on consideration of the application, by impugned order dated 03.09.2018 rejected the application of the defendant No.6 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the Caveator - respondent No.1. Perused the writ papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No.6 - petitioner herein is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit as TWITTER INC is not operating in India and insofar as respondent No.1 - plaintiff's grievance is concerned TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY is proper and necessary 6 party. Further learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at one breath the trial Court says that defendant No.6 is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and in another breath it records that defendant No.6 is proper party to the suit. Learned counsel submits that grievance of the plaintiff, if any, is to be addressed to TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and not to defendant No.6 - TWITTER INC, which operates only in USA. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in CS(OS) No.487/2016 decided on 26.10.2016 wherein the TWITTER INC is deleted on the application made by the petitioner.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the caveator /respondent No.1 submits that the plaintiff is dominus litus and it is for the plaintiff to make aggrieved parties to the suit. Further, he invites attention of this Court to the plaint allegations particularly, to paragraph 7 of the 7 plaint, where it is alleged that the messages uploaded could be viewed on defendant No.6's website i.e., www.twitter.com. He further submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner - defendant No.6 by the impugned order. Further, on instructions he also submits that the plaintiff would implead TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY in the suit before the trial Court.
6. The suit is one for perpetual injunction and permanent injunction insofar as the schedule to the suit is concerned. The plaintiff with a specific allegation particularly, at paragraph 7 of the plaint has made defendant No.6 as party to the suit. It is further allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant No.6 is also responsible along with TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY for upholding the contents of the messages, particularly, video impugned in the suit. The only 8 averment of defendant No.6 is that, it is not a necessary party at this stage.
7. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC permits the Court, at any stage of the proceedings to add or strike out any person as party to the suit, either upon or without application of either party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed by the Court. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to effectively and properly adjudicate upon the issues involved in the suit.
8. From the plaint averments and from the objections filed by the plaintiff to IA filed by defendant No.6 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, I am of the opinion, that defendant No.6 is a proper party to the suit. It is specifically averred in paragraph 7 of the plaint to the effect that impugned videos in the suit containing defamatory contents against the plaintiff have been published for public viewing on/through defendant No.6 9 website www.twitter.com. Hence, I am of the view, that defendant No.6 is a proper party in whose absence the Court would not be in a position to decide the issues involved in the suit. Because of the allegations/averment stated above, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application. I find that from the impugned order, no prejudice or injustice is caused to defendant No.6. Further on instructions, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the plaintiff would make TWITTER INTERNATIONAL COMPANY also party to the suit.
9. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.09.2018 passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms