Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii) Whether e-commerce platforms are "intermediaries" and are entitled to protection under the safe harbour provided in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines of 2011?

iv) Whether e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Snapdeal, Flipkart, 1MG, and Healthkart are guilty of tortious interference with the contractual relationship of the Plaintiffs with their distributors/direct sellers?

(iii) the Defendants were not merely passive players but in fact, ―massive facilitators‖ inasmuch as they were providing warehousing, logistical support, packaging and delivery services; the bare minimum that the Defendants are required to do to avail the exemption under Section 79 (2) (c) of the IT Act, would be to observe due diligence required under Section 79 (2) (c);

(iv) the continued sale of the products of the Plaintiffs on the e-commerce platforms without their consent, results in inducement of breach of contract, and tortious interference with contractual relationships of the Plaintiffs with their distributors;

57. It was concluded by learned Single Judge that ―the continued sale of the Plaintiffs' products on the e-commerce platforms, without the consent of the Plaintiffs, results in inducement of breach of contract, and tortious interference with contractual relationships of the Plaintiffs with their distributors.‖

58. In arriving at the above conclusions, the learned Single Judge referred extensively to an Article by John Danforth titled ―Tortious Interference with Contract: A Reassertion of Society's Interest in Commercial Stability and Contractual Integrity‖ Columbia Law Rev. Vol. 81 No. 7, 1491 and the Commentary titled ―Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts‖, R. F. V. Heuston and R. A. Buckley, 20th Edition Universal Book Traders at page 358, as well as the decisions in Aasia Industrial Technologies Limited v. Ambience Space Sellers Limited (1998) 18 PTC 316 (DB) and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Balailal Mukherjee and Company Private Limited v. Sea Traders Private Limited (1990) SCC Online Cal 55.

129. Therefore, on the third issue also, this Court is unable to concur with the learned Single Judge that Amazon, Snapdeal and Cloudtail would have to meet the diligence requirement, failing which the benefit of the safe harbour provision i.e. Section 79 of the IT Act would not be available to them.

Tortious interference

130. The Court turns now to the last issue, viz., whether the platforms are guilty of tortious interference with a contractual relationship. This incidentally is the central plank of Modicare's case.