Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction issued against major social media platforms, indirectly restraining certain media operations, could not be sustained without making the affected parties a part of the suit. The Court set aside the civil court's order that had restrained social media intermediaries from providing platforms to certain entities allegedly misusing trademarks. Observing that such a restraint directly impacted the rights of unimpleaded parties, the High Court directed the plaintiff to implead the affected petitioners in the suit. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the impugned civil court orders dated 04.04.2025 and its correction dated 07.04.2025 were quashed insofar as they pertain to the petitioners.

The petitioners in the writ proceedings were an individual journalist and a private limited company engaged in media and broadcasting under the logo "Btv Kannada." The first petitioner, a journalist by profession, is also a Director and Authorized Signatory of the second petitioner company. The company earned revenue through its social media presence under the aforementioned logo. In the third week of April 2025, all their social media pages were blocked or removed without notice, allegedly citing a civil court order.

Also Read: Unregistered Sale Deeds Based On Revoked Power Of Attorney Cannot Confer Title | Supreme Court Restores Suit Over Disputed Land Transfer

Upon inquiry, the petitioners discovered that a civil suit, O.S. No. 2499 of 2025, had been instituted by a rival media entity—Eaglesight Media Private Limited (ESMPL)—which sought an injunction restraining multiple social media intermediaries from providing platforms to the two companies, including the petitioners, for allegedly misusing trademarks. The petitioners, although central to the plaint’s allegations, had not been made parties to the suit.

The civil court, namely the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, granted an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction on 04.04.2025, which was subsequently corrected on 07.04.2025. The injunction restrained social media intermediaries including Google, Meta, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram from offering platforms to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that this order had been secured without notice or opportunity to be heard, despite being the direct subject of the suit's allegations and prayers.

Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that this amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice and Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was contended that the entire suit and interim relief were aimed at restraining the petitioners, while deliberately avoiding making them parties to the proceedings. The plaintiff’s actions were described as a "dubious step" taken to prevent the petitioners from defending themselves.

On the contrary, counsel for the first respondent (plaintiff in the civil suit) submitted that the interim order was merely a continuation of earlier restraint orders obtained in a previous suit (O.S. No. 584 of 2022) involving the same parties. It was argued that the social media platforms, and not the petitioners, were the defendants in the current suit, and hence the petitioners had no locus in the matter.

The Court reviewed extensive pleadings from the civil suit. The plaint alleged that ESMPL, the plaintiff, was the rightful owner of the Btv Kannada trademark and that the petitioners were engaging in yellow journalism, misuse of logos, and defamation. The plaint detailed multiple previous litigations, including O.S. No. 584 of 2022 and O.S. No. 7854 of 2022, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as defendants and where issues of misuse of intellectual property and defamation were being litigated.

The civil suit O.S. No. 2499 of 2025 was filed against major social media platforms, seeking prohibitory injunctions to prevent them from hosting content from the two companies—Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited and Btv Kannada Private Limited. The plaintiff alleged that despite notices and legal reminders, these platforms continued to host content allegedly infringing its trademarks and containing defamatory material.

The civil court, upon perusing the plaint and documents including trade mark certificates and legal notices, concluded that a prima facie case for trial existed and issued the ex-parte injunction. The petitioners’ pages were thereafter taken down or blocked by the platforms.

The High Court critically analysed the grant of the ex-parte injunction and the omission of the petitioners as parties to the suit. "When the entire pleadings and the prayer are pointed against the petitioners, the concerned Court ought not to have granted an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from acting in a particular manner, which would straight away affect the rights of the petitioners."

The Court further stated: "It is trite that what had to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. An indirect method of keeping the petitioners away by not arraying them as parties and filing the O.S.No.2499 of 2025 was itself a dubious step, on the part of the 1st respondent/plaintiff."

Rejecting the plaintiff’s submission that the order was merely a continuation of an earlier restraint, the Court recorded: "The direct effect of the prayer that is sought was that the petitioners could not use their Btv logo in all social media platforms; it does not affect the social media platform but it affects the 2nd petitioner."

On the limits of injunctive relief under the Civil Procedure Code, the Court observed: "Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any canon of law."

The Court held that allowing such a suit without impleading the affected parties violates fundamental procedural safeguards. "While litigants may make or may not make certain parties as defendants, though seeking a prayer against those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the law and pass the orders of the kind that is now passed."

Also Read: No Basis To Withhold Payment When Work Was Done Under Railway Supervision | Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award | Dismisses Railways Section 34 Petition

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the ad-interim injunction order dated 04.04.2025 and its corrected version dated 07.04.2025, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners. It directed that the plaintiff shall implead the petitioners in the civil suit O.S. No. 2499 of 2025 before proceeding further. It was made clear that "failing which, no order can be passed against the petitioners at any point during the subsistence of the suit."

The Court also imposed costs on the first respondent for securing an injunction that affected the petitioners without impleading them. "Writ Petition is allowed with cost of ₹50,000/- payable by the 1st respondent to the petitioners."

"The plaintiff shall now implead the petitioners as defendants before the concerned Court." The Court left all other contentions open for adjudication in the civil proceedings and disposed of I.A. No. 1 of 2025 accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri D.R. Ravishankar, Senior Advocate along with Sri Kashinath J.D., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri K.N. Phanindra, Senior Advocate along with Sri Arnav A. Bagalwadi, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Sri Varun Pathak, Advocate for Respondent No.4

Case Title: Rachappa Sathish Kumar & Anr. v. Eaglesight Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13365 of 2025 (GM - CPC)

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna