Allowed

R.V. v. Navbharat Times & Ors.

Delhi HC25 Sept 2024CS(OS)/115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court decreed the suit against defendants based on settlement agreements and interim relief. It directed Google to de-index specific image URLs. Defendant no. 15 was expunged from the parties list, and certain other defendants were proceeded against ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed against certain defendants per settlements; Google directed to de-index URLs; Defendant no. 15 removed from party list.

R.V. Vs Navbharat Times & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 115/2024 & I.A. 3353/2024, I.A. 29492/2024, I.A. 29493/2024 & I.A. 30081/2024

¶3

R.V. …..Plaintiff Through: Ms Vrinda Bhandari, Ms Anandita Rana, Ms Pragya B. and Ms Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr Ashish Verma and Mr Kartikay Bhargava, Advocate for D-1. Mr P. R. Rajhans, Mr Vivek Singh, Mr Tarun Kumar, Mr Shubham Gupta, Mr Abhishek, Ms Gunjan Verma, Ms Bhawna Mehta and Mr Vinod Kumar, Advocates for D-4. Mr Umesh K. Burnwal and Mr Amit Gupta, Advocates for D-11. Ms Mamta Rani Jha, Mr Rohan Ahuja, Ms Shruttima Ehersa and Ms Diya Viswanath, Advocates for D-12 (originally defendant no.14)-Google LLC.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶7

O R D E R % 25.09.2024

¶8

I.A. 40425/2024 ( by the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 under Order XXIII Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC ) I.A 39973/2024 ( by the plaintiff and the defendant no.4 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC )

¶9

I.A 40051/2024 ( by the plaintiff and the defendant no.5 under Order

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 18:25:47

¶11

XXIII Rule 3 CPC )

¶12

I. A 40052/2024 ( by the plaintiff and defendant no.7 under Order XXIII Rule 2 and Section 151 CPC )

¶13

The plaintiff has entered into a settlement with the defendant nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 vide separate captioned applications. The following settlement agreements have been arrived at between the plaintiff and the said defendants:

¶14

Sl. No.	Joint Application Nos.	SETTLEMEN	T AGREEMENT
1.	I.A 39973/2024 (by the plaintiff and defendant no.4)	Settlement Agreem executed between defendant no.4	ent dated 02.08.2024 the plaintiff and the
2.	I.A. 40051/2024 (by the plaintiff and defendant no.5)	Settlement Agreem executed between defendant no.5.	ent dated 06.06.2024 the plaintiff and the
3.	I. A 40052/2024 (by the plaintiff and defendant no.7)	Settlement Agreem executed between defendant no.7	ent dated 16.07.2024 the plaintiff and the
4.	I.A. 40425/2024 (by the plaintiff and defendant no.1)	Settlement Agreem executed between defendant no.1.	ent dated 20.05.2024 the plaintiff and the

¶15

All the captioned applications are signed by the plaintiff and the respective defendants. The applications are also supported by the affidavits of respective applicants.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid settlement agreements, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree in terms thereof.

¶17

I have gone through the settlement agreements, the same appear to be lawful, therefore, there is no impediment in decreeing the suit in terms of the

¶18

¶19

settlements.

¶20

Accordingly, the suit is decreed against the defendant nos. 4, 5, 7 and 1, in terms of the aforesaid settlement agreements, which shall form part of the decree.

¶21

The applications are disposed of.

¶22

I.A. /2024 (to be numbered vide diary no. E-4098439/2024 dated 25.09.2024)

¶23

The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking further directions to the defendant no. 14 (‘Google LLC’) to take down the impugned images mentioned in para 19 of the plaint whose image URLs are listed in para (a) of the prayer in the application. It is further prayed that defendant no. 14 be also directed to take down web URLs listed in para (b) of the prayer in the application. The links of image URLs and the web URLs as mentioned in paras (a) and (b) of the application are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶24

Image URLs links

¶25

(i) https://images.app.goo.gl/vD2Nj6RexbWe3bSS8;

¶26

(ii) https://images.app.goo.gl/ropS7d9AfA1XcCDe7;

¶27

(iii) https://images.app.goo.gl/RRweaL8gEbXvS5oS6;

¶28

(iv) https://images.app.goo.gl/BTwGwak8wHEVszmF7;

¶29

(v) https://images.app.goo.gl/RmimjLSMkEwP1ZeT7.

¶30

Web URLs links

¶31

(i) https://www.crackermusic.com/bjp-mla-rashmi-vermas-leaked-vid eo-and-photo/;

¶32

(ii) https://lalluram.com/objectionable-pictures-of-bjp-woman-mla-vir al-on-social-media/;

¶33

(iii) https://yuvaharyana.in/trending-news/bjp-mla-rashmi-vermas-phot

¶34

¶35

os-go-viral-on-social-media/cid11979085.htm;

¶36

(iv) https://www.kosilive.com/2023/08/bihar_78.html#gsc.tab=0;

¶37

(v) https://www.agniban.com/objectionable-pictures-of-bjps-female-m la-viral-jdu-leaders-seen-with-her/;

¶38

(vi) https://euf.edu.vn/rashmi-verma-viral-photo/; (vii) https://hardumharyananews.com/political/bjp-mla-rashmis-obscen e-photos-go-viral-on-social-media/cid11981030.htm.

¶39

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 14/non-applicant.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that despite best efforts the plaintiff is not able to find out the addresses of the persons who had uploaded the impugned images on different media platforms.

¶41

She further submits that the plaintiff has no objection in case reporting of factual controversy continues with regard to the impugned images in terms of the order dated 20.04.2024. However, the only concern of the plaintiff is that the impugned images should not be available on the website and on the search engines of Google/defendant no. 14.

¶42

However, learned counsel appearing for defendant no. 14 submits that insofar as removal of image URLs mentioned in prayer (a) are concerned, the same can be de-indexed upon order being passed by this Court. Whereas de-indexation of the web URLs which are part of prayer (b) would be contrary to the directions passed in order dated 20.02.2024 which states that URLs to be taken down by owners of the said URLs.

¶43

In view of the above, defendant no. 14 is directed to remove the image URLs which have been specified in para (a) of the prayer and are also

¶44

¶45

reproduced in para 7 above. Insofar as web URLs mentioned in para (b) of the prayer are concerned, the plaintiff is granted liberty to approach the owners of the websites with a request to remove the impugned images on the said URLs. However, in the event of failure on part of the said owners to remove/take down their respective URLs within two weeks from today, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to request the defendant no.14 in writing to de-index the said web URLs and on such request being made by the plaintiff, defendant no. 14 shall de-index the said URLs within 03 working days.

¶46

No further orders are pressed. The application stands disposed of.

¶47

CS(OS) 115/2024

¶48

Learned counsel for the defendant no.15 (Meta Platforms Inc.) submits that vide order dated 20.02.2024, a direction was given to the defendant no.15 to take down URL mentioned at paragraph 33(m) of the plaint, if defendant no.8 does not take it down within one week from the date of the said order. He submits that the said direction has been complied with. He further submits that since the defendant no.15 has complied with the said direction, its name may be deleted from the array of parties.

¶49

The learned counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, submits that the plaintiff does not have any objection in case the defendant no.15 is deleted from the array of parties. Accordingly, the name of the defendant no.15 is deleted from the array of defendants. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

¶50

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that despite service on the defendant nos.3, 6, 9 & 10, they have not entered appearance. 17. Perusal of order dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned Joint Registrar shows that the defendant no. 3 was served on 19.02.2024; the defendant no. 6

¶51

¶52

was served through speed post on 02.03.2024; the defendant no. 10 was served through authorized courier and speed post on 18.02.2024 and 20.02.2024, respectively, whereas the defendant no. 9 was served through email. Accordingly, the defendant nos. 3, 6, 9 and 10 are proceeded against ex parte . To be noted that none of the defendants except defendant no. 15 (who has already been deleted), have filed the written statement and period of 120 days has also expired.

¶53

The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that insofar as defendant nos. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10 & 11 are concerned, the suit may be decreed in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 20.02.2024.

¶54

Learned counsel for the defendant no. 11 submits that he does not have any objection in case the suit is decreed in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 20.02.2024. His statement is taken on record. 20. The order dated 17.05.2024 shows that similar statement was made by the learned counsel for the defendant no. 2 before the learned Joint Registrar that the defendant no. 2 has no objection to the suit being decreed against him. As noted above, other defendants are not contesting the suit.

¶55

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of the relief granted vide order dated 20.02.2024 qua the defendant nos.2, 3, 6, 9, 10 & 11. 22. As regards the defendant no. 11, an additional prayer has been pressed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that he should be restrained from sharing/releasing/modifying/posting/publishing any defamatory or sexually explicit/suggestive/non-consensual intimate images (NCII) or post with respect to the plaintiff to any individual, as well as, any social media/news media/You Tube channels.

¶56

Learned counsel for the defendant no. 11 submits that without

¶57

¶58

prejudice to his rights and contentions in a case FIR No.69/2023 registered at PS Cyber Cell at Patna, he has instructions to state that the defendant no. 11, at no stage had indulged into the posting of any impugned posts as mentioned in the plaint nor shall he do so in future. The statement is taken on record. 24. The suit, as well as, all pending applications stand disposed of, in the above terms.

¶59

The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

¶60

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶61

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 MK/‘ rs’

¶62

R.V. v. Navbharat Times & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.V. v. Navbharat Times & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shauna Singh Baldwin Vs Hemant S. Singh Pasrich & Ors.

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Dr. Upender Kishore

Shri Sukhdev Singh Vs Shri Jaswinder Singh

Union of India Vs Cairn India Ltd. & Ors.

Mrs. Sarla Sarda Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Mahinder Vs Dayanand & Ors.

Rakesh Katyal Vs Uma Pati Sood & Ors.

Shri Chandradeep Singhal Vs Smt. Rashmi Singhal & Ors.

Shauna Singh Baldwin Vs Hemant S. Singh Pasrich & Ors.

Rk Gupta Vs State(Thr.Cbi)

Sanjiv Sharma Vs C.B.I.

Rajesh Lathigara Vs the State & Ors.

Rakesh Katyal Vs Uma Pati Sood & Ors.

Ms Rajalakshmi Vs Sh. Vivek Anant Kulkarni