OFB Tech Private Limited & Ors. v. Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Hyperlinked Harm: Navigating Defamation in the Digital Age"

---

Factual Background

The plaintiffs, comprising individuals and companies (OFB Tech Private Limited and Oxyzo Financial Services Ltd.), filed a defamation suit against Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. and its associates over an article published on 17.05.2023 titled "the work culture of OfBusiness does not like to talk about." This article, alleging a toxic work culture at OFB, was hyperlinked in subsequent articles, including one on 07.10.2024. The plaintiffs sought its removal, claiming reputational damage, while the defendants defended it as truthful journalism.

Procedural Background

The suit (CS(OS) 944/2024) was filed after an earlier suit (CS(OS) 825/2024) addressed the 07.10.2024 article, which was injuncted on 15.10.2024. In the present case, summons were issued on 29.11.2024, followed by applications: I.A. 2506/2025 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) by defendants to reject the plaint, and I.A. 46557/2024 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC) by plaintiffs for an injunction. Judgment was reserved on 20.02.2025 and pronounced on 24.03.2025.

Provisions of Law Referred and Their Context

• Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Defendants sought plaint rejection, arguing the suit was barred by limitation (filed beyond one year from 17.05.2023) and Order II Rule 2 (failure to raise in earlier suit).
• Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC: Plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain publication, citing irreparable harm.
• Order II Rule 2 CPC: Examined whether the current suit was barred due to overlap with the earlier suit.
• Article 19, Constitution of India: Defendants invoked freedom of speech to protect source anonymity and journalistic rights.

Judgments Referred with Complete Citation and Context

1. Dalip Singh v. Mehar Singh Rathee, (2004) 7 SCC 650: Cited by plaintiffs to argue distinct causes of action in separate suits.
2. K.A. Paul v. K. Natwar Singh & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2382: Supported plaintiffs’ claim against misjoinder of causes.
3. Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223: Reinforced plaintiffs’ stance on separate remedies.
4. Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 621: Upheld plaintiffs’ right to file multiple suits.
5. Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Mfg. Co., (1997) 1 SCC 99: Plaintiffs argued continuing cause of action via hyperlinking.
6. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366: Defined grounds for plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
7. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137: Emphasized curbing frivolous litigation.
8. Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614: Stressed holistic plaint reading.
9. Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315: Highlighted preventing abortive litigation.
10. Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557: Allowed Order VII Rule 11 exercise at any stage.
11. Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1068: Affirmed suo moto power under Order VII Rule 11.
12. Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426: Cautioned against pre-trial injunctions in defamation.
13. Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269: Established high threshold for defamation injunctions.
14. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466: Rejected injunction absent clear falsity.
15. Hazrat Surat Shah Urdu Education Society v. Abdul Saheb, JT 1988 (4) SC 232: Set three-part test for injunctions.
16. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719: Clarified discretionary nature of injunctions.
17. Dr. Rashmi Saluja v. Religare Enterprises, 2025: DHC: 701: Stressed promptness for injunctions.
18. Coulson v. Coulson, 93 E.R. 1074: Highlighted delicacy of defamation injunctions.
19. Church of Scientology v. Readers Digest, [1980] 1 NSWLR 344: Advocated caution in public interest cases.
20. Lodha Developers Ltd. v. Krishnaraj Rao, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13120: Emphasized tolerating online opinions.
21. Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1030: Upheld press freedom over preemptive restraint.

Reasoning of Court

• Order VII Rule 11 Application: The Court rejected the defendants’ plea, finding the suit not barred by Order II Rule 2 due to distinct causes of action and a fresh cause via hyperlinking on 07.10.2024, within the one-year limitation period.
• Hyperlinking as Republication: The Court held hyperlinking could constitute republication, giving a fresh cause of action, aligning with evolving digital jurisprudence.
• Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 Application: The Court denied the injunction, finding the defendants’ defences of truth and fair comment plausible, supported by evidence (e.g., WhatsApp chats, LinkedIn posts). The plaintiffs’ delay (over a year) undermined urgency, and monetary damages were deemed sufficient, balancing free speech and reputation.

Decision

• I.A. 2506/2025 (Order VII Rule 11) dismissed; plaint upheld.
• I.A. 46557/2024 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2) rejected; no injunction granted.
• Case listed for further proceedings on 07.05.2025.

Case Details

• Case Title: OFB Tech Private Limited & Ors. v. Slowform Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
• Date of Order: 24 March 2025
• Case Number: CS(OS) 944/2024
• Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
• Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav