Delhi Court Directs Google & Facebook To Block Alleged Defamatory Videos Posted Against Modicare Limited [Read Order]

The order was passed by Senior Civil Judge cum Rent Controller Vikrant Vaid, who granted this relief to Modicare and restrained Ramila Rana [a former consultant for the Plaintiff (Modicare) and now working with one of the Plaintiff's competitors, Defendant No. 2] from making any unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex facie defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff or repeating or republishing the statements made in the videos forming the subject matter of the Suit.

Also, the Court has restrained a person named Satyapal Singh who runs a Youtube channel called "Satya Hunk and who is a self-proclaimed journalist, from posting any defamatory content against the Plaintiff.

The matter before the Court

Notably, Ramila Rana (Defendant No. 1) allegedly posted contents (in the form of videos) which were extremely defamatory qua the Plaintiff on her Facebook page and YouTube channels.

It was also alleged that Defendant No. 2, one of the Plaintiff's competitors, in connivance with Defendant Nos. 1 (Ramila Rana) and 3 (Satyapal Singh) was seeking to poach valuable human resources from the Plaintiff on the back of the Defamatory Videos published by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.

In this matter, Defendant No. 4 and 5 are YouTube and Facebook respectively. They have been arrayed as the respondent parties as on their platform, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 had published the alleged Defamatory Videos.

Allegations against the Defendants

It was contended that the Plaintiff is a leading corporate of India and enjoys a stellar reputation and goodwill in society and Defendant No. 1 to 3, with an intention to tarnish the image and the reputation of the Plaintiff in the eyes of its Consultants and prospective consultants, as well as the general public, published the Defamatory Videos.

It was also averred that these false statements had a direct and severe impact on the reputation of the plaintiff as an employer.

Allegations included that the plaintiff has been involved in scamming and misleading persons to join the plaintiff company.

After the publication, the plaintiff faced embarrassment while answering queries raised by its consultants as well as people in business circles which has greatly tarnished the credentials of the Plaintiff.

Court's order

The Court noted that the transcripts of the interview/videos allegedly available on Youtube and Facebook depicted allegations against the plaintiff and its management of misleading its consultants with regard to the remuneration and growth prospects of plaintiff's employees/consultants.

The Court also took into account that there were averments of plaintiff withholding the legitimate financial claims of the employees/consultants including dues pertaining to the 'travel fund' apart from other allegations involving financial impropriety.

Further, the Court observed,

"The contents of the videos/interview have the potential to adversely affect the reputation of the plaintiff among the public and in business circles. The defamatory videos continue to be accessible to the public at large on the website/portals of defendant no.4 and 5. In my opinion, a strong prima­-facie case is made in the favour of the plaintiff for grant of ex­-parte interim injunction. Moreover, the balance of convenience also lies in its favour. Further, plaintiff is also likely to suffer irreparable injury, if an ex-­parte injunction is not granted in its favour as its reputation would be prejudicially affected by such videos."

Accordingly, an ex­parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff till the next date of hearing whereby:

(1) Defendant No.1 has been restrained from making any unverified unsubstantiated, and ex facie defamatory statements concerning the Plaintiff or repeating or republishing the statements made in the videos forming the subject matter of the suit;

(2) Defendant No. 2 and 3 have been restrained from making any unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory statements against the Plaintiff or repeating or republishing any statements made in the videos forming the subject matter of the suit;

(3) Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5 have been directed to block the videos from their website/portal