Karnataka High Court: In a civil writ petition filed by Google India Private Limited (‘Google India’) challenging an order passed by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, rejecting their application to be deleted from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent involving posts and broadcasts on Google LLC and YouTube, a Single-Judge Bench of Vijaykumar A. Patil, J., while setting aside the order, held that Google India is a distinct legal entity from Google LLC. and YouTube, and therefore cannot be sued for content posted, broadcasted, or web-hosted by Google LLC. and YouTube.
Background and Trajectory
The respondent had filed a suit against 21 defendants, including Google India, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain them from posting and broadcasting photos, videos, and making derogatory statements affecting the respondent’s reputation on their websites, channels, and newspapers.
Google India filed a detailed written statement denying the averments and contending that the suit against them was not maintainable. They also filed an application to be struck off from the array of parties, arguing that there were no specific allegations of defamation against them, nor any averment or material in the plaint to substantiate that they had published, web-hosted, or broadcasted any defamatory content.
Google India contended that Google LLC and YouTube are distinct entities from it and that itis a different corporate entity registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in India. The trial Court, in similar circumstances in numerous other cases, had considered similar applications and ordered Google India to be deleted from the array of parties. The petitioner argued that the trial Court rejected their application under the impugned order without assigning reasons and without considering their contentions. Hence, Google India filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that Google India is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office in Bengaluru. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC and acts as a non-exclusive reseller of online advertising space in India under the ‘AdWords’ program provided by Google LLC. Google India also provides software development and technical support services to Google LLC, which are not the subject matter of the suit.
The Court observed that the plaint averments did not indicate that Google India had posted or broadcasted any derogatory or defamatory statements on their website and in the absence of any specific allegation against Google India regarding derogatory material on their website, the respondent could not proceed against them.
The Court noted that in M.J. Zakharia Sait v. T.M. Mohammed, (1990) 3 SCC 396, the Supreme Court held that in a defamation action, the plaint must contain proper pleadings clearly stating the defamatory words. The pleading must clearly state what defamatory or derogatory statements were spoken and published, by whom, and where. The Court observed that the entire plaint lacked any mention of specific defamatory material published, web-hosted, or posted on the website. The Court observed that Google India was not a necessary party to the suit.
The Court after noting the Google terms of service, which clearly indicated that the Google India is a distinct legal entity registered under the Act, and is wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC, concluded that both the entities are distinct legal entities and Google India cannot be sued for any posting, broadcasting, or web-hosting done by Google LLC. and YouTube. The Court also noted that the trial Court, in numerous prior cases with similar issues, had ordered the deletion of the google India from the array of parties.
In light of the afore-stated reason, the Court allowed the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge ordered the name of Google India to be deleted from the array of parties in the suit.
[Google India Private Limited v. Nayana Krishna, Writ Petition No.22125/2019, decided on 09-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mrinal Shankar for Aditya Vikram Bhat, Advocate
For the respondent: Akarsh Kanade, Advocate
