Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, Jyoti Singh, J., held that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, was not granted.
Background
The plaintiff, Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited, is a reputed production house established by Dr. M. Mohan Babu, a well-known actor, producer, and educationist. The company specializes in developing and producing cinematographic films and other forms of creative content, collaborating with seasoned filmmakers and creators. One of its most ambitious projects is the film Kannappa, a narrative rooted in religious folklore about Lord Shiva and his devout followers. The film traces the follower’s journey through spiritual awakening and transformation. Notably, the film features a lineup of celebrated actors and incorporates advanced technological and graphic techniques. The plaintiff holds the copyright to the film under Sections 13(b) and 14(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and has licensed streaming and exploitation rights to several distributors and aggregators.
The plaintiff submitted that it had invested considerable capital in the production of Kannappa. However, before the official release, several infringing copies of the film, full versions, reels, and clips were being circulated illegally via social media platforms and rogue websites. These acts were deemed by the plaintiff to be deliberate and large-scale copyright violations, adversely impacting its commercial rights, contractual obligations, and reputation and to counter this piracy, an anti-piracy agency working on behalf of the plaintiff had reported 1776 infringing links on Meta platforms, yet only 191 had been removed. Thus, faced with such rampant infringement and insufficient enforcement by intermediaries, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a dynamic injunction, blocking of infringing content, revocation of rogue domain names, disclosure of domain registrants, and other necessary reliefs, including damages.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the infringement was not only voluminous but also persistent and technologically facilitated, causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s financial interests and industry credibility. Counsel stressed the urgency of the situation, citing extensive unauthorized circulation across multiple platforms, especially social media giants like Instagram and Facebook (operated by Meta Platforms Inc., Defendant 2), and X (formerly Twitter, Defendant 4). The plaintiff maintained that such actions violated its exclusive right to exploit the cinematographic film under Indian copyright law.
In support of this, the plaintiff’s counsel pointed to the inefficacy of the takedown efforts made by intermediaries, asserting that despite prior complaints, infringing content remained live and widely accessible. Hence, the plaintiff was left with no choice but to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to seek preventive and remedial measures.
Defendant 2 (Meta Platforms Inc.) appeared on advance notice and, through counsel, submitted that it had already acted on 191 infringing links. The defendant also expressed its willingness to comply with any further directions issued by the Court, thereby indicating no resistance to the reliefs sought by the plaintiff at this preliminary stage.
Analysis
The Court observed that the plaintiff had indeed established a prima facie case warranting interim protection. The balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, especially in light of the commercial scale of investment and the potential for irreparable damage should unauthorized distribution continue unchecked. The Court emphasized that inaction at this stage could undermine the plaintiff’s lawful entitlement to exploit its intellectual property and dilute the exclusivity offered to licensed distributors. Moreover, considering the repetitive nature of piracy and its amplification through social media platforms, swift judicial intervention was necessary.
Accordingly, the Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff and directed Meta Platforms Inc. to take down and disable the infringing URLs hosting the pirated videos on Instagram and Facebook. The Court further directed X Corp to take down and disable the infringing URL to be executed in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
[Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe, CS(COMM) 713 of 2025, decided on 21-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Neha Khanduri and Mr. Achal Mittal, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Akhil Shandilya and Mr. Mrityunjay Roy, Advocates for D-2 and 3. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Om Ram, Advocate for D-5 and 6
