Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010064262021
MHCC010130332019
CNR NO. MHCC010064262021
CNR NO. MHCC010130332019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1978 OF 2021
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4772 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2766 OF 2019
Priyesh Bheda, I R S ]… Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. ]... Defendants.
Appearances :
Plaintiff in person.
Ld. Adv. Anuja Jhunjunwala a/w Irani for defendant Nos.1 to 3.
Ld. Adv. Doshi for defendant No.4.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 23rd June, 2022
-- 1 of 7 --
2 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiff
under Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the
defendants from further displaying the defamatory materials against the
plaintiff. It was submitted by the plaintiff in person that he is working
as Deputy Commissioner with the Department of Revenue Government
of India. The defendant No.1 is the leading search engine for the
internet which is being used by millions of persons to access
information from the internet. The defendant No.4 had printed
defamatory article on his Website and thereafter the internet users have
searched from the search ingine i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 regarding the
defamatory article. The said defamatory news being published, the
plaintiff sufferred loss of reputation and undergone embarrassment. He
has lost the mental peace and was subjected to insults from society at
large. The said defamatory news on the basis of the articles published
by the defendant No.4 defames the plaintiff. Even after the publication
of the said news in the year 2009 still the said article is being shown in
the search ingine of defendant No.1. The said defamatory act is
continuous since last several years. Even the plaintiff is discharged
from the offence under which he was detained but still the said news is
being shown in the search engine of defendant No.1. The defendant
Nos.1 to 4 be therefore directed to cease and desist from publishing or
publicizing the defamatory material.
2. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4 filed their reply. The
defendant No.1 submitted that the defendant No.1 is wrongly joined as
a party to the above suit. The present suit is barred by law of limitation
-- 2 of 7 --
3 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
as the plaintiff has not sought relief after the publication of the article
on the Website of defendant No.4. The present suit is not maintainable.
The defendant No.1 does not own, operate, control, administer,
regulate and is not responsible for the contents made available on
Google Search Engine. The platform is provided by Google LLC. The
defendant No.1 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC. They are
maintaining relationship with Google LLC and they are not the agent of
Google LLC. Further the article was published on the Website of
Twitter and the defendant No.4 and therefore untill and unless the
article is removed from the Website, the defendant No.1 cannot remove
the same and therefore the defendant No.1 cannot be restrained from
publishing any kind of material and thus the Notice of Motion be
dismissed.
3. The defendant No.4 filed reply and submitted that the
defendant No.4 is printing the News articles without any fear or favour
and presenting an unbiased approach to the facts. No case is made out
against the plaintiff and the news being published in the year 2008, the
present suit is barred by law of limitation and therefore the Notice of
Motion and suit be dismissed.
4. The Learned Advocate for plaintiff relied upon following
citations as follows:
1. Nandlal Rathi Vs. The Kamalaya Centre Shops &
Calcutta High Court.
2. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank
of India and Anr., Supreme Court of India, Civil
Appeal No.2514 of 2020.
3. Jorawer Singh Mundy @ Jorawar Singh Mundy Vs.
-- 3 of 7 --
4 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
Union of India & Ors., High Court of Delhi.
4. X Vs. Youtube,com/watch?vIQ6K5Z3ZYSO & Ors.
5. As against this the defendant No.1 relied upon, (1) order
passed in Chamber Summon No.92 of 2016 in Suit No.502 of 2015
in the case of Google India Private Limited in the matter between
Goldmines Telefilms Private Limited Vs. Sai Entertainment Private
Limited and others, (2) Order in Chamber Summons No.121 of
2017 in S.C. Suit No.1777 of 2013 in the Case of M/s. Shekhar
Vandana Vs. Google Online India Private Limited & Anr. and (3)
Common Order in Notice of Motion No.2301 of 2007 and Chamber
Summons No.580 of 2015 in Suit No.4449 of 2007 in the case of
Gurbir Singh Vs. Google India Private Limited.
6. Heard the plaintiff in person and the Learned Advocates for
defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4. The plaintiff in the year 2008 being
working in Government of India was detained in some offence. The
plaintiff had filed the copy of the news published in the Website of
defendant No.4 and also the article on search engine of defendant No.1.
The plaintiff had also filed the printout of the recent article which is still
shown as published in the Website of defendant No.4 and search engine
of defendant No.1. It is the contention of plaintiff that he was
discharged from the Hon'ble High Court in the matter in which he was
detained but still the said article is published on the Website as well as
available in the Search Engine of defendant No.1. The plaintiff also
submitted that due to the same he is suffering loss of reputation and
also suffer loss of mental peace. The plaintiff is seeking temporary
injunction against the defendants from further publishing the said
-- 4 of 7 --
5 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
articles. Undoubtedly the plaintiff has to show the prima facie case and
balance of convenience in his favour. The plaintiff is also required to
prove that he will suffer irreparable loss if the article is not removed
from the Website. Considering the nature of article, it seems that even
today the said article is being shown in the Search Engine of defendant
No.1. The defendant No.1 submitted that it is not the agent of the
Google LLC and is maintaining principal to principal relationship with
Google LLC. It seems that at this stage even after the discharge of
plaintiff from the said offence, the publication of said news would
further tarnish the image of plaintiff. The publication of said article
from the Search Engine of defendant No.1 and 4 would further blemish
the image of plaintiff. The defendant cannot be permitted to continue
to malign the plaintiff till trial is over It prima facie seems that the
plaintiff is suffering loss of reputation due to such news. The plaintiff is
working as Deputy Commissioner with the Department of Revenue. He
would definately suffer the loss of reputation and might also undergo
embarrassment. The contention of the defendants that they are not
responsible for the news or the publication of the news can only be
decided on merit. At this stage it prima facie seems that the plaintiff
being discharged from the said offences and the continuous publication
of the news on the Website of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4
would further disturb the image of plaintiff. It also seems that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff would
suffer irreparable loss that cannot be compensated in terms of money
and hence principal of temporary injunction lies in favour of plaintiff.
7. The contention of the defendants regarding the
maintainability of the suit against them can be decided on merits but at
-- 5 of 7 --
6 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
this stage it would be appropriate to grant equitable relief in favour of
plaintiff and therefore, I, proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.1978 of 2021 and Notice of Motion
No.4772 of 19 are allowed.
2. The defendants No.1 to 4 are directed to remove the disputed
articles and to block the same from being accessed from the
website of defendants/ their search engines by the general public
at large in accordance with guidelines provided under the
Information technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology
(Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code) Rule
2021 within 10 days of this order.
3. The findings given in this order at this stage shall not affect on
the merits of the suit.
4. Costs in Cause.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 23062022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 23062022
Transcribed on : 24062022
checked on : 27062022
Signed on : 27062022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 6 of 7 --
7 NM 1978/2021 &
Suit 2766/2019 NM 4772/2019
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
27.06.2022 at 03.25 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (VARSHA U. PAWAR)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
23.06.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 27.06.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 27.06.2022
-- 7 of 7 --