Madras High Court
Intellect Design Arena Limited vs / on 26 November, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26.11.2024
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.No.82 of 2023
& A.No.5040 of 2024
Intellect Design Arena Limited,
Represented by its Head Legal,
Mr.K. Satish Kumar,
244, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Plaintiff
/versus/
1. V.Srinivasan & Ors.
2. Venkatachalam.
3. Jeeva Venkatachalam.
4. X.Corp.,
(Formerly Known as Twitter),
Headquarters at:
San Francisco, Market Square,
1355, Market Street Suite-900,
San Francisco, California - 94103
United States of America.
Having its Corporate office in India at:
B, Old Madras Road,
Sadanandanagar,
Bennigana Halli,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka - 560 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
5. Google LLC*
Having Headquarters at:
San Francisco,
Market Square,
1355, Market Street Sulte-900,
San Francisco, California - 94103,
United States of America ... Defendants
Defendants 4 & 5 amended as per order dated 20.07.2023 in A.No.3422/2023.
Prayer:- Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:-
a) Grant a decree, directing the 1 Defendant to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/ (One
Crores) to the plaintiff, as damages for the defamatory emails and tweets made
by the 1ª Defendant available on the Defendant's platform;
b) Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 1 Defendant from
issuing, disseminating, circulating, communicating any defamatory, malicious,
scandalous statement(s), allegations, insinuations, either written or spoken,
thereby amounting to libel, by way of publication of the same, and/or slander
against the Plaintiffs, its directors, principal officers, agents, representatives,
employees, servants, clients, business associates, business partners, by way of
emails, letters, SMSs, social media posts, websites, newspapers print or
electronic, or in any other manner whatsoever, to any third parties/ general
public including but not limited to newspaper editors, journalists, clients,
business associates/business partners of the Plaintiff;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
c) Direct the 4th Defendant to take down/remove the defamatory tweets
dated 07.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 13.03.2023, 24.03.2023, 25.03.2023 and
01.04.2023 and further block the account of the 1 st Defendant with the handles
"@Srinivasn221133" and "@SrinivasanC5000" from its platform, "Twitter";
and;
d) Direct the 5th Defendant to block the email addresses of the 1st
Defendant being "[email protected]" and
"[email protected]";
e). Permanent mandatory injunction directing the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants to take appropriate action for the care and treatment of the 1st
Defendant, including but not limited to ensuring the review of his physical and
mental health by an appropriate professional medical personnel and take steps
in accordance with such advice and ensure that the 1st Defendant is not
provided access to devices which would allow him to post defamatory claims
against the Plaintiff, its employees officers, partners, business associates, clients
etc.;
f). Costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Meenakshi Ramu,
for Mr.Rahul Balaji
For D1 to D3 : Mr.G.K.R.Pandian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/8
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
For D4 : Mr.Advaith
JUDGMENT
The Civil Suit is filed for damages and prohibitory injunction against the first defendant, who is none other than a former full-time employee of the plaintiff's company.
2. The long and short of the plaint averment is that the first defendant, who was holding the position of Senior Project Lead, Team 220 in the plaintiff's company, due to certain incidents in the course of his employment, had developed a form of Paranoid syndrome and began to rise false and frivolous allegations against the plaintiff's company stating that the plaintiff's company had surveilled his house and his parents. Several incidents regarding the conduct of the first defendant as well as statements and communications through e-mail by the first defendant had prompted the plaintiff to file the present suit. The plaintiff alleges that the e-mail communications which have emanated from the first defendant had caused defamation to the reputation of the plaintiff's company, leading to irreparable damages.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 C.S.No.82 of 2023 &A.No.5040 of 2024
3. According to the plaintiff, the e-mail and speech by the first defendant are defamatory in nature, with a wrong belief (if he is mentally ill) or otherwise, with an ill motive and solely aim to malign the plaintiff.
4. In this suit, the father and mother are arrayed as defendants 2 and 3. In response to the Judge's summons, the second and third defendants took out an application in A.No.5040 of 2024 to appoint them as guardian of the first defendant, due to the mental status of the first defendant. According to the defendants 2 and 3, their son, the first defendant, suffers from serious mental ailment and is under medication. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and advised to work in stress-free environment. The Psychosocial therapy report annexed along with this application reveals that the first defendant suffers from sleeplessness, a lot of doubtful thoughts against his Company. He believes that he had been tracked and followed by a group. He suffers behavioural disturbance due to doubtful thoughts. Besides along with the application to appoint them as a guardian for the first defendant, an affidavit also filed by the parents stating that reiterating the medical observation of their son and undertaking that as a parents, they will give appropriate treatment to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 C.S.No.82 of 2023 &A.No.5040 of 2024 his son V.Srinivas to get rid of his health problem and will give all support for his treatment.
5. In view of the above fact, this Court finds that the suit need not be kept pending on file since the 1st defendant/V.Srinivas, who alleged to have been senting the defamatory e-mail and speech is not a person of sound mind. There cannot be any prosecution or suit against the person of unsound mind for his personal action. Furthermore, the parents, as the natural guardian of a person of unsound mind have come forward with an affidavit ensuring that they will look after their son from not indulging in such activities.
6. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, C.S.No.82 of 2023 is disposed of. The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of half the Court fees paid. Consequently, connected application is closed.
26.11.2024
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non speaking order
bsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/8
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/8
C.S.No.82 of 2023
&A.No.5040 of 2024
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
C.S.No.82 of 2023
& A.No.5040 of 2024
26.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/8