Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has issued an interim injunction restraining defendant no.1 from publishing or sharing any social media content containing the plaintiff’s trademark "upGrad" or any explicit or abusive content directed at the plaintiff, its management, or employees. The Court directed this restriction until the next date of hearing. It also allowed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with the Court Registry and fixed the matter for further proceedings before the learned Joint Registrar on 11.08.2025 and before the Court on 22.08.2025.

The plaintiff, a private education technology company, approached the High Court seeking various reliefs including a permanent injunction against defendant no.1 from circulating, posting, sharing, uploading, publishing, addressing, or distributing defamatory, malicious, derogatory, and libelous statements or communications against the plaintiff and its employees through print or electronic media or otherwise. The plaintiff also sought to restrain the defendant from using its registered trademark "upGrad," and further prayed for damages.

Also Read: "Non-mention of Wife in Will a 'Tell-Tale Insignia' of Propounder, Not Testator": Supreme Court Invalidates Will Bequeathing Entire Property to Nephew, Upholds High Court's Reversal of Concurrent Findings

The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Accompanying applications sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and an extension of time for filing court fees under Section 149 CPC. Additionally, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC for permission to place certain YouTube videos on record.

The plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Court fees had been applied for and would be filed within one week. Accordingly, the Court granted the extension and warned that failure would invoke consequences under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC.

The Court also considered the application seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation, citing urgency of interim reliefs and the Supreme Court's judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2024) 5 SCC 815. Based on these considerations, the exemption was granted.

Permission to submit YouTube videos in a pen drive was allowed on grounds stated in the application.

The main relief sought in the suit was to restrain defendant no.1 from posting defamatory material. Upon registering the plaint as a suit, the Court issued summons to defendant no.1 by all permissible modes, directing that the written statement be filed within 30 days from receipt. The defendant was also directed to file an affidavit of admission/denial of documents, failing which the written statement would not be taken on record.

The plaintiff was granted liberty to file replication within 30 days after the written statement, along with affidavit of admission/denial. Both parties were directed to file original documents in support of their claims. If documents were not in their possession, they were required to mention the details and source in the list of reliance.

It was clarified that unjustified denial of documents may result in costs. Inspection of documents was to be done as per the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Summons were not issued to defendant nos. 2 and 3 at this stage. The matter was listed for completion of service and pleadings before the Joint Registrar on 11.08.2025, and before the Court on 22.08.2025.

In an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiff sought interim injunction for removal of defamatory content and prevention of further publication. Plaintiff also sought to restrain use of its trademark "upGrad" in any disparaging context.

Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that advance service of the paper-book had been effected upon defendant no.1. However, despite being aware of the hearing and the suit, defendant no.1 had uploaded a fresh defamatory post on LinkedIn on 24.07.2025, mocking the legal action.

It was submitted that defendant no.1 had already filed proceedings before the District Consumer Forum, Kapda District, Andhra Pradesh, regarding alleged deficiency of service. The plaintiff contended that it had a reasonable defense in those proceedings. The plaintiff had offered to refund the entire fees of Rs. 4 lakhs to resolve the issue amicably, but defendant no.1 had declined and demanded a higher amount.

The plaintiff stated its readiness to deposit the amount with the Court. However, defendant no.1 had allegedly used LinkedIn to tag university partners of the plaintiff and make false claims. It was also submitted that abusive language was used against the plaintiff’s management and faculty in posts and videos.

"This Court has perused the defamatory posts published by defendant no. 1, set out in paragraph ‘42’ of the plaint and the transcript of the videos uploaded on YouTube by defendant no. 1."

"This Court has also perused the printouts of defendant no. 1’s social media posts published by defendant no. 1 on 24.07.2025... which clearly records defendant no. 1’s knowledge of the filing of the suit and its tentative date of listing on 24.07.2025."

"It is a matter of record that defendant no. 1 has already initiated legal proceedings against the plaintiff... which is pending adjudication before the District Consumer Forum."

"However, in the interregnum, the pendency of commercial disputes between the parties cannot justify posting of abusive posts by defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff on the social media platform and more specifically about Plaintiff’s faculty and its employees."

"The defendant no.1’s right to fair comment would not permit/encompass abuse."

"The defendant no. 1 in its post has used the plaintiff’s mark ‘upGrad’ as a hashtag and has simultaneously created alike hashtags using part of the plaintiff’s mark by joining it with derogatory words like ‘scam’ and ‘fraud’."

"The intent of defendant no. 1 to disparage the plaintiff’s mark is writ large."

The Court directed that until the next date of hearing, "defendant no. 1 is restrained from uploading any social media post or videos on social media platforms using the plaintiff’s trademark ‘upGrad’ or using any explicit or abusive [language] against the plaintiff, its management and its employees."

The Court further directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with the Registry within one week. "Appropriate directions for releasing the said amount to defendant no. 1 will be issued on the next date of hearing."

Notice was issued to defendant nos. 1 to 3 through all modes. Affidavit of service was to be filed within two weeks. Replies to the application were to be filed within two weeks, and rejoinders within two weeks thereafter.

Also Read: UAPA S.43D(2) | Continued Detention Justified In ISIS Conspiracy Case | Delhi High Court Upholds Custodial Extension Of Accused

The plaintiff was directed to "place on record the social media post handed across the bar within one (1) week." The plaintiff was also directed to "file a chronology of the dates on which the impugned posts and impugned videos were published and uploaded."

The Court mandated that "Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be complied with within one (1) week from today."

The matter was listed for completion of service and pleadings before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 11.08.2025 and before the Court on 22.08.2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Kartikeya Tandon and Ms. Nikita Jaitley, Advocates

Case Title: Upgrad Education Private Limited v. Lavangiri Ansar Basha and Ors.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 742/2025

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora