IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
   04.02.2008
  
  Present: Mr Pavan Duggal with Ms Shanta Pandey and
  Mr Vikash Singh for the Plaintiff.
  
   CS (OS) 218/2008
  
  Register the plaint as a suit. Issue summons, returnable on 23.04.2008
  before the Joint Registrar. The only addresses available of the defendants are
  e-mail addresses and, therefore, the defendants shall be served through e-mail
  addresses.
  IA No. 1445/2008 in CS (OS) 218/2008(u/S 151 CPC)
  This application has become infructuous inasmuch as no objection has
  been raised by the Registry with regard to any of the documents filed by the
  plaintiff.
  It is disposed of as such.
  IA No. 1446/2008 in CS (OS) 218/2008(u/O 5 R 9 r/w S 151 CPC)
  This is an application under Order 5 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for
  delivery of summons to the defendants through e-mails as these are the only
  known addresses of the defendants.
  This application stands allowed as indicated in the order passed in the
  suit. It is accordingly disposed of.
  
  IA No. 1447/2008 in CS (OS) 218/2008(u/S 149 CPC)
  This is an application for extension of time for filing the Court fees.
  The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the court fees amount already
  stands paid and this application has become infructuous.
  It is disposed of as such.
  IA 1448/08 in CS(OS) 218/08 (u/S 79 of the Information Technology
  Act, 2000 r/w O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
  
  Issue notice returnable on 07.03.2008
  As indicated above, the notice to the defendants shall go through e-mail
  addresses as these are the only addresses available.
  IA 1449/08 in CS (OS) 218/08(u/S 79 of the Information Technology
  Act, 2000 r/w S 151 CPC)
  
  Issue notice returnable on 07.03.2008
  As indicated above, the notice to the defendants shall go through e-mail
  addresses as these are the only addresses available.
  IA 1450/08 in CS (OS) 218/08(u/O 6 R 17 r/w S 151 CPC)
  
  
  The learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press this application.
  Dismissed as not pressed.
  IA No. 1444/2008 in CS (OS) 218/2008(u/O 39 R 1 and2 r/w 151 CPC)
  Issue notice returnable on 07.03.2008
  As indicated above, the notice to the defendants shall go through e-mail
  addresses as these are the only addresses available.
  It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants and particularly the
  defendant No.1 has been maligning and defaming the plaintiff in his blog
  (defendant No.2) over the internet. It is the case of the plaintiff that the
  defendant No.1 has incessantly written e-mails and posted blogs whereby the
  plaintiff has been allegedly identified with spammers. The learned counsel for
  the plaintiff stated that this is despite the fact that the defendant No.1
  himself does not believe that the plaintiff is directly involved with any of the
  spammers. To substantiate this plea, the learned counsel for the plaintiff drew
  my attention to page 76 of the documents file, which is a copy of blog posted on
  17.12.2007 where it is clearly indicated that ?I have never told that Tulip Lab
  is directly behind the spamming but been open to different other explanations.?
  It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the
  plaintiff is involved in business worldwide, much of which is done over the
  internet. He submits that if any one were to search for Tulip Lap, using the
  well-known search engine Google, one of the hits would show the blogs being
  shown by the defendant No.1. He submits that that in itself has a tendency of
  putting off a large number of customers who do not want to deal with anybody
  associated with spammers. He submits that this kind of attack on the internet
  has not only caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation but also causes
  financial loss. It is for this reason that earlier a suit No. 148/2007 had been
  filed in respect of the earlier blogs and e-mails but because the defendant No.1
  has not desisted from his activities and has continued to post more and more
  blogs, the present suit has also been necessitated.
  In view of these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to ex parte ad
  interim orders. The defendants and in particular the defendant No.1 shall
  desist from posting any blogs or writing any e-mails to the plaintiff or any
  other person, which contain any defamatory matter or which indicate any nexus
  between the plaintiff and spamming.
  The provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 be complied with within three days.
  Dasti.
  (BADAR DURREZ AHMED)
  JUDGE
  February 04, 2008
  SR
  
  27