Adobe Incorporated & Ors. v. Yy and Ors.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026FAO (COMM)/103/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Adobe Incorporated; YY; FAO (COMM) 103/2026; CM APPL. 26025/2026; Delhi High Court; order dated 20.04.2026; local commissioners; seizure and sealing of desktops and laptops; de-sealing/release; Respondent No. 5; Order dated 13.04.2026; business operations; re-notified 21.04.2026; Shruti Baid; Diya Kapur Sr. Adv.; V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

What did the court decide?

Interim procedural directions only: the Local Commissioners were summoned to appear before the Court on 21.04.2026; liberty was given to the appellants' counsel to inform them of their presence; the judgment(s) shown to the Court were to be furnished in soft version to the appellants' counsel the same day; the matter was re-notified for 21.04.2026. The prayer for de-sealing/release of Respondent No. 5's systems was not decided. ¶¶15

Adobe Incorporated & Ors. Vs Yy and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the systems (desktops and laptops) of Respondent No. 5, seized and sealed by the local commissioners in pursuance of the Court's Order dated 13.04.2026, should be de-sealed/released for Respondent No. 5's business operations, or whether appropriate directions should be issued in respect of the Order dated 13.04.2026.

¶¶7

Court's answer

The Court directed the Local Commissioners, who were appointed to execute the commission in terms of the order dated 13.04.2026, to appear before it the next day (21.04.2026).

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to the counsel for the appellants to inform the Local Commissioners about their presence before the Court the next day.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

A copy of the judgment(s) handed over to the Court by the respondents' counsel was to be furnished to the appellants' counsel in soft version during the course of the day.ratio¶¶13
The matter was re-notified for 21.04.2026; the respondents' application (CM APPL. 26025/2026) was not decided on merits at this sitting.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.), order dated 20.04.2026 in FAO (COMM) 103/2026 (Adobe Incorporated & Ors. v. YY and Ors.) on CM APPL. 26025/2026 filed by the respondents/applicants seeking de-sealing/release of Respondent No. 5's desktops and laptops seized and sealed by local commissioners in pursuance of the Court's Order dated 13.04.2026: the Court did not decide the prayer; it directed the Local Commissioners to appear before it the next day, granted the appellants' counsel liberty to inform them of their presence, asked that the judgment(s) handed over to the Court be furnished in soft version to the appellants' counsel the same day, and re-notified the matter for 21.04.2026.

¶1

$~40

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO (COMM) 103/2026 ADOBE INCORPORATED & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Shruti Baid, Ms. Aarshia Behl, Mr. Suryansh Gupta, Ms. Aashi Sharma and Ms. Bhavya Manda, Advs. (through VC). versus YY AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Diya Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Chaitanya D Mehta, Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Mr. Bhargav Ravindran Thali, Mr. Mayank Khaitan, Mr. Raghav Kumar and Mr. Naibedya Dash, Advs.

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 20.04.2026

¶5

CM APPL. 26025/2026

¶6

This application has been filed by the respondents/applicants with the following prayers:-

¶7

“a. Direct the de-sealing/release of Respondent No 5’s systems, i.e., desktops and laptops seized and sealed by the local commissioners in pursuance of the Order dated 13.04.2026 in favour of Respondent No. 5 so as to permit Respondent No. 5 to use the same for its business operations and/or issue appropriate directions in respect of Order dated 13.04.2026 with such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and appropriate

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

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 23/04/2026 at 12:39:00

¶10

by this Hon’ble Court;

¶11

b. Pass any further Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to do complete justice in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶12

The application was mentioned in the morning for being listed today. The same has been listed in pre-lunch session vide supplementary list. We have taken up the matter at 02:30 PM.

¶13

Ms. Shruti Baid, learned counsel who appears for the appellants/nonapplicants, through video-conferencing, requests that the learned counsel for the respondents be directed to furnish a copy of the judgment(s) handed over to the Court, today. Same be given in soft version during the course of the day.

¶14

Having seen the contents of the application, we deem it appropriate to direct the appearance of the Local Commissioners, who were appointed to execute the commission in terms of our order dated 13.04.2026, tomorrow in the Court.

¶15

Liberty is also granted to the counsel for the appellants to inform the Local Commissioners about their presence before the Court tomorrow. 6. Re-notify on 21.04.2026.

¶16

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶17

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶18

APRIL 20, 2026 /sr

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 23/04/2026 at 12:39:00

Adobe Incorporated & Ors. v. Yy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adobe Incorporated & Ors. v. Yy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Info Edge India Ltd. Vs Synapseindia Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Smt Sarla Kaushik Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commisioner & Ors.

M/S Chai Sutta Bar Trading Private Limited Vs M/S Macha Consumer Products Private Limited

Mayank Jain Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog Vs Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Anantaa-Mrkr-Arinfra (Jv) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (Ongc) & Anr.

Ashwani Dewan & Anr. Vs M/S Miniso Life Style Private Limited