Madras High Court
Nirmal Kumar vs V.Senthil Balaji on 10 September, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
O.S.A.Nos.155 and 156 of 2024
AND
C.M.P.Nos.19552, 19573 and 19575 of 2024
Nirmal Kumar .. Appellant in both OSAs
Vs.
1.V.Senthil Balaji
2.YouTube LLC
Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer
Suraj Rao
Google LLC India Liaison Office Unit
Unit No.26, The Executive Centre
Level 8, DLF Centre
Sansad Marg, Connaught Place
New Delhi 110 001
3.X Corporation
Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer
Vinay Prakash
1355 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, California 94102
United States of America
(Substituted vide order dt.9.11.23 passed in A.No.5252 of 2023)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
Previously known as
Twitter Inc.
Rep. by its Resident Grievance Officer
Vinay Prakash
8th Floor, The Estate
121, Dickenson Road
Bengaluru 560 042
4.Ananda Vikatan Digital Private limited
Rep. by its Managing Director Srinivasan
757, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002 .. Respondents in both OSAs
Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side
Rules, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Order XLI of CPC against
the common order dated 12.04.2023 passed in O.A.No.731 of 2022 in
C.S.No.244 of 2022 and A.No.5164 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Praveennath
in both OSAs
For 1st Respondent : Mr.Richardson Wilson
in both OSAs
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
These appeals are directed against the common order dated 12.04.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A.No.731 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of
2022 and A.No.5164 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
2.The appellant in both the appeals is the 1st defendant in the suit in
C.S.No.244 of 2022 filed by the 1st respondent for the following reliefs :
“(a) to direct the 1 st defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) as damages along with
interest @8% p.a. from date of decree till date of realisation;
(b) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1 st defendant from in
any way making, printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or
circulating the statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures,
sketches, tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to L herein or its
contents and/or any other defamatory statements, articles, pictures,
cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos which causes damage or
tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff on YouTube, Twitter,
Facebook, and/or in any other media and/or in any other manner;
(c) mandatory injunction directing the 1 st defendant to remove all
the defamatory tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to L
herein from YouTube, Twitter and all media accounts of the 1 st
defendant;
(d) mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to remove the
video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its platform
www.youtube.com;
(e) mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to remove all
the tweets and video mentioned in the schedules A to F and H to L herein
from its platform www.twitter.com;
(f) mandatory injunction directing the 4th defendant to remove the
video mentioned in the schedule G herein from its YouTube channel
www.youtube.com or any other media;”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
3.Pending suit, the plaintiff filed O.A.No.731 of 2022 for granting interim
injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant from in any way making,
printing, publishing, broadcasting, disseminating or circulating the statements,
articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets and video mentioned in
the Schedule A to L therein or its contents and/or any other defamatory
statements, articles, pictures, cartoons, caricatures, sketches, tweets or videos
which causes damage or tends to lower the applicant/plaintiff reputation on
YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and/or in any other media and/or in any other
manner pending disposal of the suit. He also filed A.No.5164 of 2022 for
interim direction directing the appellant/1st defendant to remove all the
defamatory tweets and video mentioned in the Schedule A to L therein from
YouTube, Twitter and all media accounts of the appellant/1st defendant pending
disposal of the suit. These applications were also heard with some other
applications for interim directions against the other defendants in A.Nos.5161 to
5163 of 2022 and A.No.5913 of 2022.
4.The plaintiff is the Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise
Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellant, who is the 1 st
defendant in the suit, is the Tamil Nadu State President of BJP for IT and Social
Media. The appellant published a series of tweets and the plaintiff contended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
that all these tweets and videos published in social platform is to lower the
reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the Society. The appellant defended the
Interlocutary Applications mainly on the ground that there is sufficient material
in the public domain to believe that the allegations against the plaintiff are
justified.
5.The learned Single Judge disposed of all the applications in the
following lines :
“33.In the result, these applications are disposed of as
follows:-
(a) The first defendant is restrained by an order of interim
injunction from publishing or disseminating, on any media,
publications that directly or indirectly allege corruption on the
part of the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. This order will
not, however, stand in the way of the first defendant making such
allegations if such allegations are made after verification and
backed by some evidence of corruption. This order will also not
stand in the way of statements relating to irregularities in the
functioning of TASMAC;
(b) The first and third defendants are directed to take
necessary steps to delete the tweets of 04.02.2022 (Schedule – A
of the plaint); 18.06.2022 (Schedule – D of the plaint);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
19.06.2022 (Schedule – E of the plaint); 07.07.2022 (Schedule –
F of the plaint); and 01.12.2022, if not already deleted, pending
disposal of the suit;
(c)The first, second and fourth defendants are directed to
remove the video described in Schedule G of the plaint from the
YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymV4zkOYxtM pending
disposal of the suit; and
(d) A. No.5913 of 2023 is closed.”
6.Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant has preferred the appeals in
O.S.A.Nos.155 and 156 of 2024 as against the order granting injunction in
O.A.No.731 of 2022 in C.S.No.244 of 2022 and to set aside the order made in
A.No.5164 of 2022.
7.The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings and the
relevant documents, found that there is a prima facie case in favour of the
1st respondent/plaintiff to grant interim injunction as well as direction. The
findings of the learned Single Judge, after referring to several documents
produced on either side, would clearly show that the contents of the offending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
tweets are prima facie defamatory and likely to cause irreparable loss to the
plaintiff to grant interim direction.
8.Similarly, the learned Single Judge, in the absence of verification and
evidence for the allegations the appellant/1st defendant had made, observed that
the appellant/1st defendant would fail as regards the publications alleging
corruption by plaintiff. The detailed order gives an impression that the learned
Single Judge has exercised his discretion, after thoroughly examining the
materials and pleadings, without leaving any point that was advanced before
him. This Court is in perfect agreement with the decision taken by the learned
Single Judge to grant interim orders.
9.We also concur with the learned Single Judge that there is a
prima facie case in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Secondly, the balance
of convenience is also in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Thirdly, the order
of the learned Single Judge is in the nature of protecting the interest of the 1st
respondent/plaintiff during the pendency of the civil suit proceedings and
therefore, no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the appellant/
1st defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
10.Above all, even though the learned Single Judge disposed the
applications by a common order dated 12.04.2023, these appeals are filed and
brought before this Court for admission nearly after 1½ year. Therefore, on this
score too, this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of
the learned Single Judge.
11.It is to be noted that the appellant/1st defendant was set ex parte and
the civil suit is now posted for framing draft issues. Since the appellant/
1st defendant filed an application to set aside the order setting him ex parte, this
Court is not inclined to give any further direction qua disposal of the civil suit.
This is also one of the aspects which we consider relevant to refuse to entertain
these appeals and accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Connected C.M.P.s are closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [K.R.S., J.]
gya/mkn 10.09.2024
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
gya/mkn
O.S.A.Nos.155 & 156 of 2024
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9
