[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Adfactors Pr Private Limited vs Ashok Kumar Or John Doe on 31 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11529 OF 2026
WITH
SUIT (L) NO. 11528 OF 2026
Adfactors PR Private Ltd Applicant /
.. Plaintiff
Versus
Ashok Kumar or John Doe & Ors. .. Defendants
....................
Ms. Ankita Singhania a/w Ms. Chitra Rentala, Ms. Kriti Srivastava,
Mr. Alabh Anant Lal, Ms. Shravanai Maddirala & Mr. Utkarsh
Mishra i/by Trilegal, Advocates for Applicant / Plaintiff
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 31, 2026
P. C.:
1. Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated
31.03.2026 which is moved today though on a holiday in view of the
grave exigency cited therein.
2. Heard Ms. Singhania, learned Advocate for the Applicant /
Plaintiff in Interim Application (L) No. 11529 of 2026.
3. At the outset, Ms. Singhania would submit that there is an
inadvertent typographical omission in prayer clause (d) of Interim
Application. She would submit that in line No. 4 of the said prayer
clause after the word "them" the word "not" be inserted in order to
have the correct meaning of the relief sought for by the Plaintiff. After
perusing the said prayer, Ms. Singhania appears to be right in her
1 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
submission. Hence, leave to amend and insert the word "not" at the
said place is accordingly granted. Amendment is permitted to be
carried out forthwith in presence of Court. Re-verification stands
dispensed with. Accordingly amendment is carried out before the
Court which is endorsed by the Court itself and the Advocate for
Plaintiff.
4. Ms. Singhania cites exigency in view of the case made out in
Interim Application and persuades the Court to pass ad-interim reliefs.
Suit is filed hurriedly by the Plaintiff which is a Private Limited
Company specializing in end-to-end, integrated public relations
services, advising clients on capital markets and IPO communications,
public issues etc.
5. She would submit that Plaintiff services clients across 25
industry sectors (approximately) and maintains operational presence
across 40 cities in India (approximately) and has its offices in India,
Sri Lanka and Singapore. She would submit that in the ordinary
course of business Plaintiff utilizes propriety system tools, workflows
and technology platforms for its work. She would submit that in this
process, Plaintiff collects, receives, processes, records, organizes, stores
and transmits data and information relating to its clients and their
businesses, campaigns and communications strategies etc. which is
prima facie confidential and propriety information, commercially
2 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
sensitive information which if accessed unauthorizedly and
disseminated may lead to significant commercial, reputational and
legal damage not only to the Plaintiff but its clients as well.
6. She would submit that Plaintiff maintains high decree of
safeguards and integrity, inter alia, having multi-layered security such
as enterprise-grade firewall, internal network security and end-pond
security. She would submit that Plaintiff also adheres to recognized
information security standards and holds certification such as ISO
27001:2022 along with global security best practices.
7. She would submit that Plaintiff is constrained to file the present
Suit seeking permanent injunctive reliefs against Defendant Nos. 1 and
2 and / or their directors / proprietors / operators / partners /
employees / agents / servants and / or affiliates and / or any person
claiming through them from using, copying, publishing, distributing,
transmitting, communicating and / or disclosing / selling and / or
leaking to any person the internal data stolen and / or appropriated by
Defendant Nos. 1 and / or 2 from the Plaintiff and any other
information relating to the Plaintiff that is not available in the public
domain by any medium whatsoever or on any platform whatsoever.
8. She would draw my attention to the Suit plaint and Interim
Application and submit that on 29.03.2026, Plaintiff received email
3 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
from Defendant No. 2 - BlackShrantac having subject "BlackShrantac's
Note : Your name will be disclosure within 24 hours on our Darkweb".
She would submit that the email discloses that Defendant No. 2
downloaded Plaintiff's internal data (1 TB) before encryption and
threatened to leak the said data if its demands were not made. She
would submit that the threat of disclosure of data as stated in the
email dated 29.03.2026 at 7:20:32 a.m. (appended at Exh. "F", page
No. 80 of Suit plaint) states that the data will be disclosed after this
weekend. However the subject records disclosure within 24 hours.
9. Next she would draw my attention to Exh. "G", page No. 81
which is a post posted on social media platform "X" (formerly known
as Twitter) by ransomware Alert a threat reporting account which
reported that Plaintiff an Indian-based Public Relations and
Communications Services company, has reportedly fallen victim to
Defendant No. 2 that had carried out the data exfiltration incident
and the group intended to publicise the data within 1-2 days. The
identity, original and address of Defendant No. 2 is reflected only
through its email ID i.e. [email protected].
10. In view of the aforesaid threat perception, Plaintiff has moved
this Court seeking injunctive reliefs rather ad-interim reliefs urgently
at this stage and sought issuance of John Doe injunction in the
aforesaid circumstances. Ms. Singhania would draw my attention to
4 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
the private complaint dated 25.03.2026 filed by Plaintiff with N.M.
Joshi Marg Police Station against an unusual activity which alerted the
Plaintiff's system for protecting its internal data. She would also
submit that Plaintiff reported the Cyber security incident to Indian
Computer Emergency Response Team through their incident reporting
form, copy of which is appended at Exh. "J" (page No. 84). She would
submit that despite reasonable efforts, the true identity, name, address
and location of Defendant No. 2 is currently unknown to the Plaintiff
and according to her instructions, Defendant No. 2 is operating
through anonymized channels, encrypted communication tools and /
or the dark web, deliberately concealing its identity save and except its
email ID which in all probability is from foreign shores. Hence
injunctive relief is sought against Defendant No. 1 John Doe / Ashok
Kumar and Defendant No. 2 - BlackShrantac ransomware Group. She
would draw my attention to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 26
to 28 and submit that if the ad-interim injunctive reliefs are not
granted, there is every possibility of disclosure of data exfiltrated by
Defendant No. 2 being misused / leaked to the detriment of the
Plaintiff and its clients which may lead to multifarious litigation and
cause of action for damages.
11. She would submit that if the said data threat is carried out by
Defendant No. 2, Plaintiff is likely to suffer substantial financial loss
5 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
apart from reputational harm, damages, future litigation considering
the present revenue as on 31.03.2025 i.e. in the last financial year of
IR 567 Crore of the Plaintiff. She would submit that Defendant No. 2
was first identified in September 2025 and has since then trageted
numerous victims from a varity of critical industries / sectors. Hence
it is necessary that the ad-interim relief be granted by Court. She
would submit that Defendant No. 2 has in its email at page No. 80
explicitly admitted to the illegal ex-filtration and encryption of 1 TB of
Plaintiff's internal data and has threatened disclosure if its demands
are not met.
12. She would submit that Defendant No. 2 is a malicious
ransomware attacker who has illegitimately gained the date and
threatened to publish the same. She would therefore submit that in
these circumstances, Plaintiff has impleaded Ashok Kumar or John Doe
as principal Defendant in the Suit proceedings since whereabouts of
Defendant No. 2 are not known and the only identity available with
the Plaintiff is through its email ID which is stated in the cause title of
the Suit plaint. She wold submit that there is every likelihood that
Defendant No. 2 may disseminate or sell the confidential data which
will cause grave and irreparable loss to Plaintiff and its clients.
13. After hearing the submissions made by Ms. Singhania and
perusing the record of the case as also the material which is appended
6 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
to the Plaint, prima facie, arguable case is made out by Ms. Singhania
for grant of ad-interim relief. One of the reason which impels me to
pass the order is in view of the fact that Defendant No. 2 is a
ransomware Group namely the data extortion cadre which has
claimed similar responsibility for Cyber attack and targeting the data
in the past using the same modus operandi by primarily threatening
public release of stolen public information. In the email received by
Plaintiff which is appended at page No. 80, threat perception from
Defendant No. 2 is prima facie evident as it states that the data will be
disclosed and Plaintiff would be aware about the consequences. The
contact email address of Defendant No. 2 is separately given as
[email protected]. Hence balance of convenience
squarely lies in Plaintiff's favour in as much as, if the confidential data
is made public or leaked or traded or compromised, it will lead to
disastrous and catastrophic consequences.
14. It is pertinent to note that "Data theft" is a misnomer as it is no
theft under law. Instead, the valid term is "Data Crime / Criminals".
"Data theft" is covered under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, 1957,
provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and provisions of
Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the case of foreign defender which prima
facie may be so in the present case, Section 75 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 implies that the Act shall apply to an offence or
7 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or
conduct constituting the offence involves a computer, computer system
or computer network located in India. Further Sections 3 and 4 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with extra-jurisdictional power given to
Indian Courts to deal with the same.
15. It is seen that Plaintiff is one of the victims in the list of
Defendant No. 2 and considering the threat given and activities of
Defendant No. 2 targeting organizations across various sectors and
geographies, Advocate for Plaintiff would submit that Plaintiff being
custodian of confidential data of its clients in fiduciary capacity be
granted ad-interim reliefs as prayed for. Further if threat perception of
disclosure is exercised and implemented, it would amount to
infringement of fundamental right to privacy covered under the
expanded definition of Article 21 "Right to Life" under the
Constitution of India.
16. Attention is drawn to the provisions of the Information
Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and
Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 which provides
protection to personal information and submits that these Rules
provide the only codified provisions protecting the privacy of
individual and their personal information. Plaintiff is custodian of
such personal data of its clients and if the same is disclosed, leaked or
8 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
disseminated, it would cause humongous prejudice not only to the
Plaintiff as the custodian of the data but also to individual clients
managed by Plaintiff. That apart prima facie clear threat perception of
disclosure within 24 hours on Darkweb emanates from the contents of
the email dated 29.03.2026 at page No. 80 and proceeds on
extraneous claim of extortion and secretive dealings.
17. Since the Suit is filed in a hurry, leave and liberty be given to
implead the platform "X" as Defendant No. 4 on which the second
threat perception has been posted which is appended at page No. 81
of the Suit. Impleadment of "X" Platform on whose platform the
second threat dated 30.03.2026 (appended at page No. 81 of Suit
plaint) has been posted and brought to the notice of Plaintiff is
allowed. Leave to amend and implead "X" platform as Defendant No. 4
is therefore accordingly granted to Plaintiff. Amendment to that
effect is permitted to be be carried out in the Suit and Interim
Application within a period of one week from today online and offline.
Reverification stands dispensed with.
18. In view of the above, ad-interim relief is hereby granted in
terms of prayer clauses (a), (c) and (d) of the Interim Application
which read thus:-
(a) Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant
Nos. 1 and / or 2 and their directors / proprietors / operators /
partners / employees / agents /servants and / or affiliates and any
9 of 10
P1. SL-11528-2026.odt
persons claiming through them from using, copying, publishing,
distributing, transmitting, communicating and / or disclosing /
selling and / or leaking to any person the Internal Data stolen and /
or appropriated by the Defendant Nos. 1 and / or 2 from the
Plaintiff and any other information relating to the Plaintiff that is
not available in the public domain by any medium whatsoever or on
any platform whatsoever;
(c) Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and / or their
directors / proprietors / operators /partners / employees / agents /
servants and / or affiliates and any persons claiming through them
to delete all the Internal Data available in the computer, computer
resource, computer network, computer system of Defendant Nos 1
and / or 2;
(d) Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and /or their
directors / proprietors / operators / partners / employees / agents /
servants and / or affiliates and any persons claiming through them
not to disclose / disseminate and / or publicise the captioned suit
filed by the Plaintiff before this Hon'ble Court."
19. In view of the above, issue notice to the Defendants made
returnable on 22.04.2026. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's
notice, Plaintiff is directed to serve copy of the Suit, Interim
Application along with copy of this order on the Defendants and
inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode
of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof
thereof on or before the next date.
20. Reply shall be filed by Defendants to the Interim Application on
or before the next.
21. Stand over to 22nd April, 2026 for hearing of Interim
Application.
22. All parties to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded
from Bombay High Court Website.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.03.31
17:41:20 +0530 10 of 10
