Briefs Facts 

In the matter of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Revant Himatsingka, The plaintiff was offended by a video that FoodPharmer posted and that was shared by others on their Instagram and Twitter accounts. The video criticising Zydus Wellness Products Ltd.’s product GLUCON-D that was being shared on social media sites like Instagram and Twitter infuriated the plaintiff.

Argument Advance 

The claimant claimed that the contested video denigrated its product GLUCON-D, and as a result, the claimant impleaded Meta Platforms Inc. and Twitter Inc., which were in charge of running and maintaining the Instagram and Twitter platforms until Food pharmer took control of them. They also stated that although the plaintiff intended to pursue his claim for costs and damages, the defendants should be given instructions to remove the contested films from their respective platforms.

Food Phrama’s attorney claimed that the offending video had been removed and that Food Phrama had agreed to stop broadcasting any subsequent content that mentioned or made reference to any of the plaintiff’s goods, including GLUCON-D. 

Analysis of Court Decision 

The Delhi High Court Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar ordered Meta Platforms, Inc. and X Corp. to remove the contested video from each of their platforms as well as to remove the video if it were to be reposted or distributed on either of their platforms. This was done without the need for the plaintiff to reapply to the court for the same reason.