'Google India' Can't Be Sued For 'Defamatory' Content Posted On 'Google LLC', 'YouTube'; They Are Distinct Entities: Karnataka HC

With this, a bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed Google India's writ plea seeking its deletion from a defamation suit pending in Bengaluru Court, observing that no specific allegations were made against it in the plaint.

The single judge was essentially hearing Google India's plea seeking its deletion as defendant no. 6 in the suit. The plea also challenged the order passed in February 2019 under Order 1 Rule 10 [Court may strike out or add parties] by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Briefly put, the suit in question was filed in 2017 seeking a permanent injunction to restrain 21 defendants, including Google India, from posting, broadcasting photos, videos or making derogatory statements against the plaintiff on websites, news channels and newspapers which affect his reputation.

It was the case of Google India that it had filed a detailed written statement, denying all plaint averments and asserting that the suit was not maintainable against it.

It also filed IA No. 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, seeking to strike itself off from the suit on the grounds that the plaint contained no specific allegations or instances of defamatory content attributable to Google India and that it is not a necessary party to the suit.

It was also argued that the plaint wrongly described Google India as the owner of Google and YouTube, whereas it is a distinct legal entity incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956.

Google India also contended that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC., and has been appointed as a non-exclusive reseller of online advertising space in India under the 'AdWords' programme provided by Google LLC.

Lastly, it was also categorically submitted that they have not posted any derogatory content against the respondent-plaintiff.

After hearing the petitioner's counsel and examining the records, the Court found merit in Google India's case as it noted that the perusal of the plaint averments does not indicate that Google India had posted, broadcast, etc., any derogatory or defamatory statements on their website.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of MJ Zakharia Sait vs. TM Mohammed & Ors. 1990, the Court noted that in a defamation suit, it must be clearly stated what are the defamatory or derogatory statements spoken and published by whom and where.

"In the absence of any such specific pleading, the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner cannot be proceeded with", the court order reads.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that in the entire plaint, there is no whisper as to what was the defamatory material that the petitioner had published, web-hosted, or posted on its website.

Therefore, the Court concluded that Google India is not a necessary party to the suit.

The High Court further accepted the petitioner's submission that Google India, Google LLC, and YouTube are separate entities as it noted that Google India had placed on record the Google Terms of Service, which confirmed this distinction.

The Court observed:

"…petitioner is a distinct legal entity registered under the Act, and is wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC., hence, I am of the considered view that both the entities are distinct legal entities, and if any posting, broadcasting, web-hosting by Google LLC., and YouTube, the petitioner cannot be sued".

It also noted that the trial court, in other similar matters, had already deleted Google India from suits.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the trial court's February 2019 order. It also allowed Google India's IA No. 4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. Thus, it directed that Google India (defendant no. 6) be deleted from the array of parties in O.S. No. 6216/2017.

Appearances

Advocate Mrinal Shankar appeared for Google India.

Advocate Akarsh Kanade for the respondent 

Case title - Google India Pvt. Ltd vs Nayana Krishna