1. The present order disposes of three Notices of Motion fled in the present Suit.
2. For the purposes of the present order the background facts of the suit are not very material. Suffice it to state that there were 40 suits fled by the
respective Plaintif in respect of 40 Agreements for Sale entered into by the respective Plaintif with Defendant No. 1 herein in respect of certain
commercial office spaces which formed the subject matter of the said Agreements. On account of disputes in respect of the building plans, the said 40
suits came to be fled for specifc performance of the respective Agreements for sale of the aforesaid commercial premises.
1st Consent Minutes
3. On 11th December 2015, a composite compromise came to be arrived at between the parties, and was recorded in Consent Minutes of Order
(“1st Consent Minutesâ€). The 1st Consent Minutes inter alia provided for certain payments to be made by Defendant No. 1 which amounts, as set
out in clause 3, were to be deposited in this Court together with interest at the rate determined by the Court. An issue had arisen regarding certain
blogs / links / URLs bearing the names of certain Defendants, which according to the Defendants were false and defamatory, and were required to be
removed. Accordingly it was agreed between the parties to the 1st Consent Minutes that the said blogs / links / URLs were liable to be removed and
discontinued. It was requested by the parties that certain orders be passed inter alia against M/s. Google Inc., M/s. YouTube LLC USA and others.
4. The 1st Consent Minutes were taken on record by this Court on 17th December 2015 and an order was passed in terms thereof. This Court, by
consent, further determined the rate of interest at 8.5% per annum payable on the principal sum from the date of the respective advances till the date
of deposit. The fgure payable as on 30th January 2016 was agreed between the parties and recorded in paragraph 2(ii) of the order. Certain further
directions were given to M/s. Google Inc. and others as set out in paragraph 2(iii) of the order. Accordingly, the suits and the Notices of Motion then
pending were all disposed of. Subsequently, a clarifcation of clause 2(ii) of the order dated 17th December 2015, was made vide an order dated 17th
February 2016.
2nd Consent Minutes
5. For reasons that are at this point not of relevance, the parties entered into Modifed / Amended Consent Minutes of Order (“2nd Consent
Minutesâ€). By the 2nd Consent Minutes there was an amendment to Clause 3 and it was now provided that Defendant No. 1 was to deposit within
120 days from the date of removal of the concerned blogs/URLs/links, the agreed sum together with interest as set out in the modifed / amended
Clause 3. Clause 6 of the modifed / amended terms forming part of the 2nd Consent Minutes, particularized in Annexure ‘7’ thereto, the blogs /
links / URLs etc. which were liable to be taken down / removed / discontinued. An obligation was cast on the Plaintif to address communications to
M/s. Google Inc. and others to ensure that the blogs / links / URLs “particularized in Annexure ‘7†be removed.
6. Annexure ‘7’ to the 2nd Consent Minutes contains a list of 293 blogs/links/URLs etc. which were to be removed. There is a note at the foot
of Annexure ‘7’ which reads thus: “Any other Blogs / URL’s / YouTube Videos which are not included above - may also be deleted.â€.
Pertinently, Clause 7 of the 2nd Consent Minutes seeks certain directions from this Court to M/s. Google Inc. and others, and no obligation is cast, in
this Clause, on the Plaintif. This is of some signifcance in the light of what is stated hereafter. The 2nd Consent Minutes were taken on record by an
Order dated 29th July 2016. The Court subsequently came to be seized of Notice of Motion No. 1157 of 2016, Notice of Motion No. 1455 of 2016 and
Notice of Motion (L) No. 1299 of 2017 fled by Google India Private Limited, Google Inc. USA and You Tube LLC seeking inter alia clarifcation that
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the 1st Consent Minutes and Clauses 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the 2nd Consent Minutes would not be binding on them. By orders dated
4th January 2018, the above Notices of Motion were disposed of with the clarifcations as prayed.
7. The Plaintif had fled a similar Notice of Motion, being Notice of Motion (L) No. 844 of 2018 seeking clarifcation that the above clauses of the 1st
Consent Minutes and 2nd Consent Minutes would not be binding on the third parties. This Notice of Motion too was disposed of by consent, vide an
order dated 10th April, 2018 clarifying the above position.
8. The efect of the above Notices of Motion being allowed were that the directions given to the third parties referred to above stood recalled. By
agreement of the parties, including Defendant No. 1, there was therefore now no question of Clause 7 of the 2nd Consent Minutes being given efect
to. It was clarifed that the remaining terms under the 1st Consent Minutes and the 2nd Consent Minutes would continue to be binding on the parties
thereto.
The present Notices of Motion
9. The Plaintif then fled Notice of Motion No. 1009 of 2018 seeking inter alia a direction that the period of 120 days for Defendant No. 1 to deposit
the money along with interest as agreed in Clause 3 of the 2nd Consent Minutes, commenced from the date of the orders dated 4th January 2018 /
10th April 2018. In this Notice of Motion, Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 fled an Affidavit dated 3rd August 2018, placing on record a copy of a report
by one Dreamworth Solutions Private Limited (“1stDreamworth Reportâ€), stating that 38 of the original 293 Blogs were still active and were
required to be removed.
10. After taking necessary steps for removal, and as 289 of the 293 blogs referred to in Annexure ‘7’ of the 2nd Consent Minutes had been
removed, the Plaintif fled Notice of Motion No. 1995 of 2018 seeking that the Respondents added therein remove the remaining four blogs from their
website. The present contesting Defendants fled an Additional Affidavit in Notice of Motion No. 1009 of 2018 on 12th December 2018 placing on
record a further report by Dreamworth Solutions Private Limited (‘2nd Dreamworth Report’) claiming that there were 21 blogs active, including
two of the original 293 which formed the subject matter of Notice of Motion No. 1995 of 2018. It was contended that besides the 293 blogs in
Annexure ‘7’, these other blogs were also required to be removed.
11. The Plaintif thereafter fled Notice of Motion (L) No. 3095 of 2018 in Notice of Motion No. 1009 of 2018 seeking a direction to the concerned
Respondents therein to remove the 19 blogs set out therein from their website. By orders passed by this Court on 19th December 2018 and 22nd
December 2018, it was directed that the said blogs be removed.
12. When the matter was listed before this Court (in chambers) on 11th January 2019, the contesting Defendants handed over (without any Affidavit)
a third report by Dreamworth Solutions Private Limited (‘3rd Dreamworth Report’) stating that there were certain further blogs that were
required to be removed.
13. The Plaintif fled Additional Affidavits dated 17th January 2019, 25th January 2019 and 7th March 2019 stating that all the blogs in the 3rd
Dreamworth Report had in fact been removed. When the matter appeared before this Court on 7th March 2019, this Court noted that the two articles
appearing on links of Indian Express had been removed.
14. When the matter appeared on Board on 12th March 2019, the contesting Defendants fled a further report of Dreamworth Solutions Private
Limited (‘4th Dreamworth Report’) stating that there were 56 further blogs which were required to be removed. It bears mention that the 56
items mentioned in the 4th Dreamworth Report, actually pertain to only 29 URLs which have been mentioned 56 times.
15. Based on the 4th Dreamworth Report, the Plaintif fled Additional Affidavits highlighting that out of the 29 URLs, 23 URLs (mentioned 43 times)
stood removed.
16. At the hearing today, the Plaintif has tendered a compilation with an index showing the 29 URLs (mentioned 56 times) and the status thereof. As
regards the 6 remaining URLs (mentioned 13 times), 2 had been removed and of the 4 which remained as on the date of the hearing, it was submitted
by Mr. Cama on behalf of the Plaintif that :
(i) the URLs at Sr. Nos. 27 and 29 were full text reportings of Court judgments which could not removed;
(ii) the URL at Sr. No. 31 was a post put up by Mr. Ashok Mahindru himself;
(iii) the URL at Sr. No. 34 was only a link to various persons with the name ‘Ashok Mahindru’ and was in any event in no manner defamatory.
17. On behalf of the Plaintif Mr. Cama has contended that regardless of the steps bonafde taken by the Plaintif, to remove the blogs in the
Dreamworth Reports, in fact, the Plaintif was required under Clause 6 of the 2nd Consent Minutes only to remove the 293 blogs referred to in
Annexure ‘7’ and the same have been removed. He submits that the note at the foot of Annexure ‘7’ was at highest an expression that
the Plaintif ‘may’, if found appropriate, delete any other blogs of like nature and this was not an obligation to keep removing blogs / links ad
nauseum, ad infnitum. Mr. Cama submitted that the Defendants are proceeding on an incorrect assumption that they can, on a rolling basis, keep
raising new blogs and thereby defer the payment obligation under amended Clause 3 recorded in the 2nd Consent Minutes.
18. He submits that in any case, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, all the URLs in the 4th Dreamworth Report have been removed
except for the 4 (mentioned 13 times) referred to above, which are ex facie judgments of the Court or posts within the control of Mr. Ashok
Mahindru, Defendant No. 4, himself and the Plaintif cannot be required to remove the same. He therefore submits that the 120 days’ period for
the deposit as per amended Clause 3 recorded in the 2nd Consent Minutes be treated as having commenced, at very minimum, from today.
19. Per contra, Mr. Kasar on behalf of the contesting Defendants contends that frstly there is no desire by the contesting Defendants to prolong the
matter as they are required to continue to pay interest till such time as the deposit is actually made. He further places reliance on Clause 7(b)(iii) of
the amended / modifed terms recorded in the 2nd Consent Minutes to contend that all blogs containing material / contents concerning Defendant No.
1, Defendant No. 4, Mr. Ashok Mahindru, his companies, family members and employees which are defamatory, derogatory, false, mischievous and
mala fde are required to be removed. Mr. Kasar however, in fairness, did not stretch the argument to contend that the Defendants can, on a rolling
basis, keep furnishing further lists of blogs to be removed.
20. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is clear from a perusal of the 1st Consent Minutes and the 2nd Consent Minutes that the
arrangement between the parties was restricted to the Plaintifs ensuring removal of the 293 blogs in Annexure ‘7’. It appears, admittedly so,
that those 293 blogs / links / URLs have been removed. The note at the foot of Annexure ‘7’ certainly cannot and does not entitle the
Defendants to keep furnishing new lists of blogs and thereby defer the obligation to deposit under Clause 3 as amended and recorded in the 2nd
Consent Minutes. It would have been sufficient for the Plaintifs to have simply removed the 293 blogs, and thereafter the time would have been
treated as having commenced for the purpose of the concerned Defendants being required to make the deposit; the Plaintif need not necessarily have
removed any other blogs, than the 293 referred to in Annexure ‘7’.
21. The reliance placed by the contesting Defendants on clause 7(b)(iii) of the 2nd Consent Minutes is entirely misplaced. Clause 7(b)(iii) is a direction
to YouTube, which direction, by the orders dated 4th January 2018 read with the order of 10th April 2018, stand recalled, and the parties by consent
agreed that the said Clause 7 will not be required to be enforced qua the third parties. Clause 7 does not impose an obligation on the Plaintifs and
therefore the Defendants cannot seek shelter thereunder. Even otherwise clause 7(b)(iii) speaks of defamatory / derogatory articles being required to
be removed. Ex facie neither the Court reported judgments nor the posts by Ashok Mahindru himself, or the Facebook page in question, constitute
defamatory or derogatory or false material. Thus, even assuming clause 7(b)(iii) was to impose an obligation on the Plaintif, (which it does not), there
would be no obligation on the Plaintif to remove the last 4 remaining blogs / URLs, set out in the 4 th Dreamworth Report.
22. Having regard to the 4th Dreamworth Report, there are only 4 blogs / URLs which remained to be removed. From the arguments made by Mr.
Kasar, fortunately it does not appear that there is any attempt to suggest that there are any other blogs / URLs which are in issue. As noted above
two of these URLs are reports of Court judgments and the same certainly cannot constitute defamatory or derogatory material and nor can there be
any obligation on the Plaintif to remove the same. As regards the blog at Sr. No. 31 of the Compilation furnished by the Plaintif, it is evident that the
blogs have been posted by Ashok Mahindru himself. The words and catch phrases used on the said blogs are entirely within the control of Mr. Ashok
Mahindru himself, and if any are perceived by him to be undesirable, he is at liberty to remove the same. Certainly, the Plaintifs cannot be foisted with
an obligation to remove blogs posted by Mr. Ashok Mahindru himself.
23. As regards Sr. No.34 of the Compilation furnished by the Plaintif, the same is nothing but a list of persons named “Ashok Mahindruâ€. The
same in no manner is ofending, defamatory or derogatory, and in any event the Plaintif has no control over a list of such names from Facebook.
24. In the circumstances I am of the view that the Plaintif have duly complied with their obligations under the 2nd Consent Minutes, and particularly in
Clause 6 thereof. Accordingly, Clause 3 as amended in the 2nd Consent Minutes must be given full efect. Though I would be entitled to direct that the
period of 120 days from the removal of the 293 blogs has long since lapsed, as a matter of indulgence to the Defendants, I am hereby directing that
the period of 120 days contemplated in Clause 3 of the 2nd Consent Minutes shall be deemed to have commenced form the date of uploading of this
order and Defendant No. 1 shall deposit the sum stated therein, inclusive of interest at 8.5% per annum, payable from the dates of the respective
advances as particularized in Annexure ‘1’ to the 1st Consent Minutes till the date of deposit. Thereafter the remaining clauses of the 1st
Consent Minutes and 2nd Consent Minutes will take efect as already agreed.
25. This order shall be treated as an order in all the suits. With the above directions, the Notices of Motion fled by the Plaintif in the captioned suit
stand disposed of.
