Recently, Delhi High Court directed nine YouTube channels to remove “defamatory and disparaging videos” against cafe chain MBA Chai Wala and its founder Prafull Billore.

The Single hedaed bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh herself saw some videos and noted that expressions like “MBA Fraud Wala” and various other derogatory expressions were used by the YouTube channels.

“In the opinion of the Court, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 have not come forward to defend their position or to justify the said publication of the videos. Under such circumstances, Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are directed to take down/pull down their videos on YouTube, if the same have not been deleted,” the court said.

It directed that the videos shall be removed within 72 hours by Google in case the YouTube channels do not comply with the order.

Case Brief -

In the said matter, the Court was dealing with a suit filed by MBA Chai Wala and Billore against the nine YouTube channels alleging that they made certain defamatory and slanderous statements without any basis whatsoever. They sought protection of their reputation in the trademark, business and personality rights.

Their argument was centered on the assertion that the videos in question contained entirely incorrect and slanderous statements, including terms like "scam" and "fraud," when referring to MBA Chai Wala and its founder.

“The question that remains is whether these videos are defamatory and derogatory and have an adverse impact on the Plaintiffs reputation. The Court has viewed one of the videos. Clearly, the expressions used are ‘MBA Fraud Wala’ and various other derogatory expressions,” the court said.

Justice Singh also issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the YouTube channel "theadityasaini" from making any derogatory or disparaging remarks or publications against the cafe chain and Billore, whether on online or offline platforms.

“Such an injunction would extend even to YouTube videos in respect to the Plaintiffs businesses,” the court said.

Case Title: PRAFUL BILLORE & ANR. v. BAEROJGAR & ORS.