Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic+ Injunction To JioStar | Rogue Websites Restrained From Illegally Streaming ‘Jolly LLB 3’
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has passed a Dynamic+ injunction restraining multiple rogue websites, domain registrars, and internet service providers from hosting, streaming, or making available the upcoming Bollywood film Jolly LLB 3, scheduled for release on September 19. Acting under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court directed immediate blocking and deactivation of infringing domains. Observing that any delay would result in financial losses to JioStar and cause irreparable breach of copyright, the Court held urgent intervention essential to protect the producer’s rights.
The suit was filed by JioStar India Private Limited, a media and film production company, seeking protection of its copyright in the upcoming Bollywood film Jolly LLB 3, scheduled for theatrical release on 19 September 2025. The plaintiff alleged that a cluster of websites, including vegamovies.yachts and others, were engaged in unauthorized hosting, streaming, and making available copyrighted content, and would likely attempt to disseminate the film upon its release.
The plaintiff stated that it had commissioned Kangra Talkies Private Limited for development and production of the film. By letter dated 21 August 2025, Kangra Talkies confirmed that JioStar was the sole and exclusive owner of all rights, including intellectual property and exploitation rights in the film and its script, as well as rights to initiate or defend proceedings for infringement. The plaintiff further asserted that it held exclusive global media rights, including television broadcast rights, digital streaming rights, and ancillary rights.
The plaintiff identified defendants 1 to 24 as websites allegedly offering infringing services. Defendants 25 to 34 were domain name registrars, and defendants 35 to 43 were internet service providers. Defendant 44, the Department of Telecommunications, and defendant 45, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, were included to ensure enforcement of any blocking directions. The plaintiff argued that the impugned websites were accessible in India, including within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, and were likely to infringe its copyright in the film.
The plaintiff submitted that if such unauthorized dissemination occurred, it would cause irreparable financial loss, undermine its investment, and violate its exclusive copyright. It relied on previous Delhi High Court decisions granting injunctions against rogue websites, including Star India v. moviesverse.ac (2023) and Universal City Studios v. Dotmovies.baby (2023), the latter of which recognized the need for Dynamic+ injunctions extending to future works.
Defendants 31 and 34 opposed certain aspects of the relief sought, contending that real-time blocking was not warranted as the film was not a live event. After considering the pleadings, submissions, and documents, the Court found a prima facie case for interim protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Justice Tejas Karia, while considering the request for interim relief, recorded that “having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 31 and 34, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.”
The Court noted the plaintiff’s copyright and distribution rights in the upcoming film, observing that “the Plaintiff being the producer and owner of the Film has the exclusive distribution rights to publicly exhibit and communicate the Film and contents associates with it, through all modes including but not limited to theatrical exhibition.”
Addressing the concern of piracy, Justice Karia stated that “the apprehension of the unauthorized dissemination, telecasting, or communication of the Film on the Websites shall pose a significant threat to the Plaintiff’s revenue streams undermining the value of the considerable investment made by the Plaintiff in producing the Film.”
The Court further recorded that “the issue of the Websites engaging in the piracy of copyrighted content presents a recurring threat and disseminating or communicating any portions of the Film, without proper authorization or licensing from the Plaintiff, would violate the Plaintiff’s Copyright.”
Citing precedent, the Court referred to Universal City Studios LLC v. Dotmovies.baby, noting: “Any injunction granted by a Court of law ought to be effective in nature. The injunction ought to also not merely extend to content which is past content created prior to the filing of the suit but also to content which may be generated on a day-to-day basis by the Plaintiffs… owing to the nature of the illegalities that rogue websites indulge in, there is a need to pass injunctions which are also dynamic qua the Plaintiffs as well.”
Finally, the Court observed the urgency, stating: “if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm would be caused to the Plaintiff as the Film is scheduled to be released on 19.09.2025, it is evident that the considering the possibility of unauthorized dissemination of the Film in question in the age of internet would require effective and swift means to contain the spread of unauthorized dissemination of the Film.”
The Court directed that till the next date of hearing, Defendant Nos. 1 to 24, and persons acting on their behalf, are restrained “from communicating, hosting, streaming, screening, or making available for viewing / downloading, without authorization of the Film, ‘Jolly LLB 3’, on any electronic or digital platform, in any manner whatsoever.”
The Defendant Nos. 25 to 34, being domain name registrars, “shall suspend the use, block, disable and deactivate the DNRs of Defendant Nos. 1 to 24… within 72 hours of receiving copy of Notice and this Order.” The registrars were also directed “to furnish, by way of an Affidavit in a sealed cover / password protected document… complete details such as name, address, email address, phone number, IP address… and mode of payment along with payment details used for registration of domain name by the registrant(s).”
The Defendant Nos. 35 to 43, the internet service providers, “shall suspend the use, block, disable and deactivate the Websites… and such other domains which are discovered during the present proceedings by the Plaintiff to have been infringing the Plaintiff’s Copyright.” Defendant Nos. 44 and 45, namely the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, were instructed “to issue a notification calling upon the various ISPs registered under them to block access to the various domains / websites… and such other websites / domains that may subsequently be notified by the Plaintiff to be infringing.”
“The Plaintiff shall continue to file Affidavits providing the details of the newly discovered websites, their Domain Names and the URLs, which are communicated and blocked to ensure that this Court is fully informed.”
“If any website, which is not primarily an infringing website, is blocked in pursuance of this Order it is permitted to approach the Court by giving an undertaking that it does not intend to do any illegal dissemination of the content… and the Court would consider modifying the injunction if the facts and circumstances, so warrant.”
“Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.” It added: “The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within a period of two days and file the Compliance Affidavit within two weeks.”
The matter was listed for further hearing on 20 January 2026
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Yatinder Garg, Mr. Priyansh Kohli, and Ms. Ishi Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Advocate
Case Title: JioStar India Private Limited v. Vegamovies.yachts & Ors.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 977/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
