Court holds that territorial jurisdiction and cause of action issues require full trial; directs college to implead originators of disparaging posts within eight weeks
In a significant ruling dated August 28, 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed YouTube (Google LLC)'s application for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a defamation suit filed by Sri Eshwar College of Engineering. The suit alleges that several disparaging videos posted on YouTube's platform damage the college's reputation and sought, among other reliefs, removal of these videos and disclosure of the originators' identities.
YouTube's defense contended that the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction as neither party had business operations within the court's jurisdiction. It also argued the absence of a cause of action and non-joinder of key parties (originators of the videos), making the suit unsuitable for adjudication. YouTube urged the court to apply Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to summarily dismiss the suit without trial, asserting the plaint was vague and foundational facts were missing.
The college's counsel countered that the disparaging content was accessible and viewed within the court's territorial jurisdiction, thereby establishing cause of action. They further noted that the suit was filed with the court's prior leave and the college had sought disclosure of infringers' details to implead them as defendants. The college emphasized that the suit aims to protect its registered trademark and reputation from infringement.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, after hearing both parties, observed that issues such as territorial jurisdiction, cause of action, and non-joinder of parties raised substantial questions necessitating trial and determination. The court noted that disparaging posts being viewed within the jurisdiction amount to a cause of action. It also recognized the pending application for disclosure of infringers' details, which would enable impleading the originators, thus postponing the non-joinder issue.
The court held that summary judgment under Order XIII-A is inappropriate where foundational facts are disputed or require trial. It directed the college to take steps to implead the originators as defendants within eight weeks and dismissed YouTube's summary dismissal application with no order as to costs.
This judgment underscores the cautious approach courts adopt before exercising summary dismissal powers, especially in complex internet intermediary liability and defamation cases involving multiple parties and territorial challenges.
Bottom Line:
A summary judgment application under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be entertained when issues such as territorial jurisdiction, cause of action, and non-joinder of parties require trial and determination.
Statutory provision(s):
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 79, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order XIII-A
Youtube (Google LLC) v. Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971286
