In a case for civil defamation the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction making substantial reliance on the Terms of Service of Blogspot and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
The Supreme Court of India decided the Special Leave Petition filed by Avnish Bajaj, for quashing a criminal case against him relating to a pornographic MMS posted for sale on the Baazee website, of which he was the CEO at the time. The Court held that when the principal offence has been alleged against a company and it is not made an accused then the directors and the employees to whom the vicarious liability cannot be tried. As per this holding it quashed charged under Sec. 67 read with Sec. 81 of the IT Act.
Aggrieved by the contents of the online Article, “is nirmal baba a fraud ?”, Nirmal Baba approached the Delhi High Court in the case titled as, Nirmaljit Singh Narula vs Indijobs At Hubpages.Com. The Case which prayed for a mandatory injunction alleged that contents of the Article were defamatory and harming his reputation and standing. This case raises several important issues including, liability of intermediaries, the IT rules, jurisdiction of internet websites and blocking of websites.
Concerned a dispute with regard to the subscriber, inter aliachallenging the authenticity of computer generated bills which contained the charges. The Court held that, “printouts taken from the computer/server by mechanical process as contemplated under Sections 65 and 65-A of the Evidence Act is permitted, irrespective of the compliance with the requirement of Section 65-B of the Act”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court when examining Section 65B, held that even when an affidavit/certificate under Sec. 65B is not filed it would not foreclose the Court from examining such evidence provided it complies with the requirements of Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
Concerned issues of copyright infringement and passing off where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s cover versions violated provisions of the Copyright Act and confused a consumer as to it being a cover version.