YOUTUBE LLC & ANR Vs. GEETA SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a query to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the Court is informed that merely the offensive tagline has been removed but the offensive post itself, which damages the fair name of the respondent, has not been removed from the You Tube channels across the world, as was directed by the impugned order as well as the order dated 04.06.2015.

(2.) The Court would note that the case has been listed for nine times in the last 64 odd days. On each occasion, the time was sought by the appellant to comply with the directions of the Court. Today, the Court is informed that the directions cannot be complied with on account of technological reasons.

(3.) Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate to traverse the facts of the case. The appellants impugn the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi directing them to comply with the order dated 04.06.2015 which directed as under: