{"id":223133,"date":"2019-12-11T13:29:59","date_gmt":"2019-12-11T07:59:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=223133"},"modified":"2019-12-12T14:26:20","modified_gmt":"2019-12-12T08:56:20","slug":"google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong>:<\/span> The bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ has asked Google India to face trial in a 2008 criminal defamation matter and has held that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, prior to its substitution, did not protect an intermediary in regard to the offence under Section 499\/500 of the IPC<\/em><\/span>. Section 79 of the IT Act, prior to its substitution, exempted Network Service Provider from liability only on proving that the offence or contravention was committed without its knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence or contravention<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court was hearing a matter relating to Criminal Defamation wherein an <span style=\"color: #993300;\">article<\/span> was published by the Coordinator of Ban Asbestos India, a group hosted by Google, defaming the complainant, a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling asbestos cement sheets with seven manufacturing plants and more than twenty-five marketing offices all over India. The article dated 31.07.2008 captioned \u201c<em>Visaka Asbestos Industries making gains<\/em>\u201d. It was, hence, argued that the asbestos cement sheets have been manufactured for more than 70 years in India, however, the complainant was singled out though there are other groups manufacturing asbestos cement products. Google India had argued that it was not the intermediary and that the intermediary is the Parent Company.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On this the Court held that, even proceeding on the basis that the first accused is the originator, as defined in the Act, of the allegedly defamatory matter, and the first accused is not only the author but is also the publisher of allegedly defamatory matter, and again proceeding on the basis that it is the appellant, who is the intermediary and not its Parent Company, the refusal on the part of the appellant to remove the post, may amount to publication. It said,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cthere may be publication within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC even in the case of an internet operator, if having the power and the right and the ability to remove a matter, upon being called upon to do so, there is a refusal to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Considering the facts of the case, the Court noticed that proceeding on the basis of the assumption that the appellant is the intermediary and that it stood alerted by the complainant by letter dated 09.12.2008, the appellant has not removed the offensive posts though it could technically remove it, therefore, it amounted to publication and this publication attracts Section 499 of the IPC.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court was, however, considerate of the fact that even in Section 482 of the Cr.PC, <em><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">the court must qualify the right and the power of the appellant even assuming to be the intermediary to act freely as it would opposed to the principles which have been evolved in regard to the internet service provider that it is not open to it to unilaterally decide as to what matter should be removed and it can act so as to remove on the basis of the request only if there is a court order<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cAny other view would make it a despot strangling the free flow of ideas which is what the internet is all about.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court noted that in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7M6wO0WZ\"><strong>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1<\/strong><\/a>, the provisions were read down to mean that Section 79(3)(b) of the Act and Rule 3(4) of the Rules, would require an internet service operator to takedown third-party information not on mere knowledge of objection to its continuance but after there has been an impartial adjudication as it were by a court. However, <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><em>in the facts of this case, the acts constituting the alleged offence under Section 499 of the IPC, were done not when Section 79, after its substitution, was in place. The Rules were enacted in the year 2011<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u201cIn such circumstances, what we are asked to do is to import in the principles into the factual matrix when Section 79 was differently worded and in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court left open to the appellant to urge before the Court the question relating to the inability of the Parent Company to remove the post without the court order. The Court, however, said that <em>t<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">his is a question which can be, independent of the non-availability of the protection under Section 79 of the Act in its erstwhile avtar, pursued by the appellant<\/span><\/em><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">.<\/span> The Court, hence, held,<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00a0[Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/c76rlKvy\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine SC 1587<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10.12.2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ has asked Google India to face trial in a 2008 criminal <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[14761,2889,32104,38803,38802],"class_list":["post-223133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-criminal-defamation","tag-google","tag-information-technology-act","tag-intermediary","tag-section-79"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ has asked Google India to face trial in a 2008 criminal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-12-11T07:59:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-12-12T08:56:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/\",\"name\":\"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-12-11T07:59:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-12-12T08:56:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case","og_description":"Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph, JJ has asked Google India to face trial in a 2008 criminal","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-12-11T07:59:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-12-12T08:56:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/","name":"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2019-12-11T07:59:59+00:00","dateModified":"2019-12-12T08:56:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/11\/google-india-fails-to-gain-protection-under-section-79-of-the-it-act-2000-to-face-trial-in-a-2008-defamation-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Google India fails to gain protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000; To face trial in a 2008 defamation case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243810,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/12\/defamation-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":0},"title":"Defamation, a tort","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Achal Gupta\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/defation.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/defation.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/defation.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/defation.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/defation.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-december-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 December 2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 1, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"TOP STORIES Nirbhaya Case| SC rejects review petition filed by the fourth death row convict Akshay Kumar Singh The\u00a0grounds raised in the review petition\u00a0were: futility of awarding death sentence in\u00a0Kalyug, where a person is no better than a dead body; and that the level of pollution in Delhi NCR is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276419,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/19\/intermediary-entitled-to-claim-protection-u-s-79-it-act-for-criminal-liability-unless-active-role-is-disclosed-delhi-high-court-quashes-fir-against-flipkart\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":2},"title":"Intermediary entitled to claim protection u\/s 79 IT Act for criminal liability unless &#8216;active role&#8217; is disclosed; Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Flipkart","author":"Editor","date":"August 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: In a case where FIR was registered by Managing Director of Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd. (\u2018respondent') against Flipkart (\u2018petitioner') for allegedly selling fake products of DC Dermacol cosmetics, Asha Menon J. quashed the FIR stating that this is one such case where the registration of an FIR\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":93831,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/21\/if-no-charge-has-been-made-out-under-section-67of-it-act-then-appellant-cannot-be-proceeded-against-under-section-292-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":3},"title":"If no charge has been made out under Section 67of IT Act, then appellant cannot be proceeded against under Section 292 IPC","author":"Saba","date":"December 21, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While determining the question whether the appellant who has been discharged under Section 67 of the IT Act could be proceeded under Section 292 IPC, the Bench of Dipak Misra and Praffula C. Pant, JJ. held that when the Information Technology Act in various provisions deals with obscenity\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/29\/law-on-defamation\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":4},"title":"Law on Defamation | Calcutta High Court stresses on essentials of offence of defamation in light of harm caused to reputation of person: Read the detailed report","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: In a case wherein directors of the Board of society had published defamatory statements against the Vice Chairman of the society and circulated the same in the whole society and pasted it on the elevators to defame him, Bibek Chaudhuri, J., explained the offence of defamation and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":230011,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/05\/22\/madras-hc-state-cannot-launch-prosecution-under-s-1992-of-crpc-for-defamation-whimsically-without-any-application-of-mind\/","url_meta":{"origin":223133,"position":5},"title":"Madras HC | State cannot launch prosecution under S. 199(2) of CrPC for defamation whimsically, without any application of mind","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 22, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: While answering important questions related to freedom of press; meaning of criminal defamation against the State and requisites of Section 199(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Single Judge Bench of Abdul Quddhose, J., observed that, application of mind by the State to the materials placed on record\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223133\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}