Popular Cyber Defamation Cases in India

Popular Cyber Defamation cases in India

Case Name Ref. Issue
Kalandi Charan Lenka vs. State of Odisha16/01/2017 Dr. DURGA PRASANNA CHOUDHURY Odisha High Court In the instant case the entire obscene message and fake Facebook account showing stalking and obscene representation or morphed naked photograph of the victim are all prima facie committed by the petitioner through electronic form as per the Police papers. Moreover, the material about the pamphlets or any other form of defamation to the character of the victim pasted on the wall of the College or hostel.
Google India Private Limited. vs. Visaka Industries Limited and Ors.18/11/2016 M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad The appeal of the defendant, as a service provider has no connection with the disputes of 1st defendant and plaintiff and it does not have any malafide intention. The 3rd defendant denied the other allegations against it and specifically contended that the 3rd defendant did not indulge in any cyber defamation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Gagandeep Singh Kang vs State Of Punjab And Anr14/09/2016 JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Punjab-Haryana High Court FIR, in this case, has been registered on the basis of Whatsapp messages alleged to be derogatory, sent to the complainant, he is a follower of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Commission for Women11/08/2014 V.M. KANADE AND A.K. MENON Bombay High Court Respondent alluded to having suffered cyber defamation which has further violated her right to work and live with dignity. In November 2012 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court directed Mumbai police to block the defamatory content on websites
Sangita Devi And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr04/07/2014 JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR Jharkhand High Court The applicant is the father-in-law of the informant and he is aged about 74 years. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The narration of events in the First Information Report is so unbelievable that no reasonable person would believe the same. Only vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant.
Babu Ram Aggarwal & Anr. vs Krishan Kumar Bhatnagar & Ors24/01/2013 JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAWDelhi High Court Whether on the basis of the aforesaid emails, the defendant No.1 can be said to be having the written consent of the defendants No.3 &4 to transfer or agree to transfer the aforesaid second floor flat
Yahoo! India Pvt. Ltd. vs State & Anr02/03/2012 JUSTICE SURESH KAIT Delhi High Court Petitioner alleged that the accused persons knowingly, allowed these contents and material to be hosted in the websites which is dangerous to communal harmony with common and malafide intentions and have failed to remove the objectionable content for their wrongful gain
Sakthivelu @ Ramesh vs. Datchayani @ Tamizh14/02/2012 MRS.R. BANUMATHI ,MRS. S. VIMALA Madras High Court The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the respondent wife.
Tata Sons Limited vs Greenpeace International & Anr28/01/2011 JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATDelhi High Court Despite all regulatory clearances having been obtained for developing Dhamra as an eco-friendly port, the defendants have been raising concerns about the alleged probable dangers to the nesting and breeding of Olive Ridley Turtles by the proposed port at various quarters, being raised by the Defendants/third parties, which are based on false, frivolous and misleading facts. The plaintiff submits that the defendants have gone a step ahead and made an online game by the title “Turtle Vs. TATA”. A screenshot of the same is filed with the suit. It is stated that a mere look at the defendant’s game?s screenshot reveals how they have unauthorizedly used the plaintiff?s trade mark, “TATA” as well as the “T” within a circle device without the permission of the plaintiff thereby infringing its trade mark rights. Does the plaintiff further submit that the defendant has not only infringed the plaintiff’s trademark rights but is also maligning its reputation? A look of the Article titled “Campaign 2.0: Turtle Vs. Tata, the Game” published on June 29, 2010 in the WALL STREET JOURNAL
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.23/11/2009 DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARDelhi High Court The Plaintiff alleges that the use of the said mark and device by the Defendants was dishonest and was an attempt to encash on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff and was calculated to cause confusion and deception among the public by passing off the services of the Defendants as that of the Plaintiff
Rajiv Dinesh Gadkari through P.A. Depamala Gadkari vs. Smt. Nilangi Rajiv Gadkari16/10/2009 P.B. MAJMUDAR, R.V. MORE Bombay High Court Respondent case that lastly she had received a letter from the appellant seeking divorce by consent but still he continued to harass her by uploading the vulgar photographs, text image on the website and had accordingly defamed her for which she filed a defamation complaint under Cyber Crime and the offence is already registered against the appellant. The respondent wife accordingly filed the said petition on the aforesaid grounds. She also prayed for return of articles and prayed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75,000/’per month.
Shah Rukh Khan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors20/08/2007 RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809 1. What is the scope and ambit of Section 245 (2) of the Code? 2. What are the essential ingredients of defamation? 3. Can a member of an indefinite class file a complaint for defamation? 4. Can the benefit of Section 79 of IPC be given to an accused at the initial stage of the criminal proceeding?
Kirti Jain @ Shalu Jain and Anr. vs. Sh. J.P. Jain15/11/2006 A.K. SIKRI Delhi High Court Once there was a settlement between the parties, which has also been reduced in writing and pursuant whereto all the cases between the parties filed against each other were withdrawn, the respondent could not have filed these proceedings for defamation arising out of the earlier proceedings.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors04/06/1999 1999 IVAD Delhi 545, 80 (1999) DLT 472, 1999 (50) DRJ 647 The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the claims of the petitioners to get telecast Lux Zee Cine Awards, 1999 on DD is covered particularly by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
Asha Parekh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors19/09/1975 1977 CriLJ 21 Whether dialogues and sequences in the film constitute the offence of defamation in terms of Section 499 of the Code.