Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dateof Decision: 10.04.2026
INFO EDGE INDIA LTD .....Appellant
Through: Ms Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. RishabhSharma, Mr. Aman Taneja, Ms. Vanshika Thapliyal and
Ms Ambica Sood, Advocates
Through: Mr. Bhuvanesh Sehgal, Advocate
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present appealhas been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 15.01.2026 [‘impugned order’] wherein the District Judge (CommercialCourt) - 06, SouthEast, Saket Courts, Delhi, has allowed the Respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of theCodeof Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in thematter titled SynapseIndia Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Info Edge (India) Ltd. CS(COMM)NO. 728/2025.Therelevant portion of the interim injunction granted reads as under: “29. Consequently, till further orders, an ad-interim order of injunction is passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant restraining Defendant from using the trade name of the Plaintiff No.1 i.e. "SynapseIndia" and "Synapselndia I.T. Outsourcing @ Peace of Mind" on its web-portal i.e. www.ambitionbox.com for inviting/permitting users to post reviews about its work culture or otherwise in respect or in relation to the Plaintiffs. Time of 72 hours from today is given to the Defendant for ensuring compliance of the said direction.
30. Further, Plaintiffs are at liberty to file application to the Defendant and/or to the Defendant through Counsel for removal of the comments /posts on the platform of Defendant mentioning the details of the same and Defendant is directed to remove the same within 36 hours of receiving the said application from the Plaintiffs.”
2. The impugnedorder was passed in a suit, wherein the Respondents alleged trademarkand copyrightinfringement, passing off and defamation on account ofcertain negative reviews posted by users on the Appellant’s platform‘AmbitionBox’. TheRespondents stated that theAppellant created a pageon its platform enablingusers to postreviews abouttheRespondents’ companywithouttheir express permission, and thus used their trade mark without prior authorisation. It was the stand of the Respondent that Appellant’splatformpermittedpostingofreviews withoutverification if the ‘user, postingthespecific content,had actually workedwith thecompany or not. It was contended that the objected to, negative reviews were ex-facie fake and were causing damage to the goodwill and reputation of the Respondent/plaintiffs.
3. However, it is thestand oftheAppellantthat theAppellantprovides a neutral online platform i.e. www.ambitionbox.com, that permits its registered users to post company reviews andsalaryinsightsetc. It is a userdriven platform which hoststhird-party content in the form of reviews and ratings,and servesas an importantsource of information for job seekers to evaluate the work culture, compensation etc. at prospective employer organisation. The Appellant neither initiates, authors, edits, selects the receiver of, modifies nor endorses such content.
3.1. It is stated that the platform of the Appellant does not exercise editorial control over ‘user’ reviews. It publishes and informs the users aboutits Community Guidelines, TermsofUse and Privacy Policy. Further, theAppellanthas a multi-tier content review mechanism to take down any content which does not adhere to its Community Guidelines.
3.2. It is stated thatthe ImpugnedOrder effectively compels theAppellant to apply its own mind to whether the content on its platform should or should not be blocked, proactively screen user content, and publish only “bonafide, identified and factual reviews”.
3.3. It is contended that anonymity on theAppellant’splatform is designed to protect freespeech of employees against employers. It is because of this model that several users feel comfortable in speaking up, sometimes to highlight inter alia workplace harassment, favouritism, biasness or pay disparity etc. It is stated that the Trial Court has failed to recognise the fundamental right to free speech of users of the platform. The directions operateas a pre-trialgagorder, curtailingspeech and criticism in thegarb of trade mark protection.
4. Conversely, the Respondent has also, seriously contested that the Appellant is not an intermediary andstatesthattheAppellant is not entitled to safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. It contends that the impugned order was passed by the Trial Court after reviewing the lack of verification by theAppellant and anonymity of the opinions posted by the users on this platform.
5. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant states on instructionsthatAppellantis willing to havethe appealdisposed of and suit itself decreed in terms ofits undertaking dated 10.04.2026, which reads as under: - It is humbly submitted that the Impugned Order may be set aside in view of the undertakings herein. Without prejudice to the Appellant's case that the Respondent's suit is misplaced and incorrect, the Appellant is willing to tender the following undertakings:
1. That the Appellant provides a neutral online platform i.e. www.ambitionbox.com that permits its registered users to post company reviews and salary insights etc. The Appellant neither initiates, authors, edits, selects the receiver of, modifies nor endorses such content.
2. As on date, the Appellant allows its users to login either through their Gmail or LinkedIn or Microsoft 365 or Naukri.com account. In addition to the login details, the platform also records IP address and time stamp etc of the users posting reviews. All users accept the terms and conditions that they will not misuse the anonymity of the platform and to respect the community guidelines and the terms and conditions of the platform 'AmbitionBox'.
3. In relation to the Respondents, the Appellant undertakes to use the Respondents' name/ mark only as an identifier to enable its registered users to comment and review the Respondents' company and share salary insight etc. in accordance with the Appellant's terms of use and community guidelines.
4. While the Appellant maintains a robust content review and moderation mechanism which prohibits and removes abusive and other kinds of problematic content (gibberish, not necessarily negative reviews), it is possible that certain at-issue content may get uploaded by the users.
5. In case, the Respondents are aggrieved by any such content, they can reach out to the Appellant at support@ambitionbox.com. The Appellant undertakes to review the reported content within 48 hours on working days and provide an update to the Respondents.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant will immediately remove the content as provided under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (as amended from time to time, in Clause 3(1)(b), if the Respondents furnish any of the following: (a) Court order; or (b) notification by the Appropriate Government or its agency.
7. If the reported content is established on the face of it be a fake review (for eg: review suggesting that the Respondents maintain a zoo in their office, recorded at para 2(q)(ii) in the Impugned Order at Pg. 83-84/ pdf 93-94, then the Appellants will remove it without requiring a court order.
8. Further, even without a court order, if the reported content reveals confidential information, such as source code, manufacturing techniques, R&D activities, and detailed financial results, the Appellant will remove it within the afore-mentioned timeline.
9. The Appellant requires the reported content to be identified by its URL, by email to the Appellant on support@ambitionbox.com, so as to expeditiously act upon the Respondents' complaint.
10. For any at-issue content, pursuant to an appropriate order by a court of law or a request from a law enforcement agency against the Appellant for a particular post, the Appellant will furnish the user details as maintained by it. This will include the user credentials (used to create the account, IP address, and timestamps). A copy ofthe undertakinghas been handed over by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant.
6. Learned senior counselfor the Appellant states that the suit may be decreed in terms of the abovementioned undertaking and in case of any breach of terms ofthis undertaking, theRespondentcan havetheremedy, to have the same implemented, through execution proceedings.
6.1. She clarifies that with respect to theundertaking, at para no. 10, it is thestand oftheAppellantthat in respectofthe ‘at-issuecontent’, which the Appellant refusesto takedownand if theRespondentis dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellant, Respondent will be at liberty to approach the ExecutingCourt to raise the issue; and if the Executing Court agrees with the Respondent’s grievance and directs the Appellant to provide the user credentials, Appellant shall do so.
6.2. She relies uponSection 72A oftheInformation and Technology Act, 2000 (‘Act of 2000’) to contend that if the ‘at-issue content’ does not fall foul of Rule 3(1) of theRules, 2021 and/ortheCommunityGuidelines ofthe Appellant’splatform, the Appellant will not be in a position to either take down thereview or providethe user detail information to the Respondent, on its request alone. Shestatesthatin such a situation the Respondent may provide a Court order to the Appellant from the Executing Court.
7. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the Respondent states that while Respondent has no objection to the suit being decreed in its favour and against theAppellantin terms and conditions of the undertaking, however, he states thattheRespondentis not concedingto the stand of the Appellant that it is an intermediary which is entitled to protection under Section 79 of theAct of 2000. Hestates that,however, since the suit is being disposed of with consent oftherivalparties, thesaid issuemay beleft open, so as to not curtail the rights of the Respondent in case any disputes arise in future. 7.[1] He states that Respondent should be permitted to respond to the comments postedby theuser, withoutany conditionfor payment of charges or subscription. Learned counselfor theAppellantclarifies that thefeatureto respond is available on the platform without any charges and in fact, in the past Respondent has availed the said facility. 7.[2] He submits thatthecommentson theold pagewhich was taken down by the Appellantin pursuanceof theimpugned order are no more available and Appellantshould notrestorethesaid commentsand initiatea fresh page, instead. Learned counselfor theAppellant states that in compliance with the impugned order it had taken down thepageofthe Respondent hosted on its platformand thereforecurrentlyno commentsareavailable on its platform. It submitsthatin view of theorder passedtoday, it will host a fresh page for theRespondent company,not reactivate the old page and therefore the old comments will not be visible.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. We have perused the undertakings given by the Appellant and the submissionsofthe learned counselfor theAppellant,qua para no. 10 of the undertaking. Theparties haveagreed to havetheappealdisposed of and the suit decreed in terms of this order.
10. We taketheundertakings of the Appellant on record and direct that theAppellantshallremain boundby thesaid undertakings, the submissions of its senior counselrecorded at paragraph[6].1, 7.[1] and 7.[2] of this order, as well as the directions issued hereinafter.
11. With respect to ‘at-issue content’ stipulated at para no. 10 of the undertaking, we clarify that in case the Respondent is aggrieved by the Appellant’s stand on ‘at-issue content’, it will be at liberty to file an appropriate Execution Application to raise the said issue and if the Executing Court finds merit in the submission of the Respondent, it shall issueappropriatedirectionsto theAppellantherein to furnishtheuser details of the person whopublished the objected/negative reviews; and thereafter, theAppellantwill takeaction against the said user in accordance with law.
12. In view of the undertakings and the order passed today, the interim injunction order dated 15.01.2026 is therefore,set aside. The Appellant will be at liberty to host a fresh page pertaining to Respondent company and permit postingof user comments qua the Respondent. The Appellant will commence the platform qua the Respondent on a clean slate. In case, Respondenthas anyconcernsabout thefresh user comments, it will exercise its rights in accordance with terms and conditions set out in this order.
13. With the consent of the parties, the suit itself is decreed in terms of this order. A decree shallbe drawn up in favour oftheRespondent/plaintiff. The Respondent/plaintiff will be entitled to seek execution of the decree in case of any violation and/orbreach by theAppellant/defendant as well as for user credentials in case of an ‘at issue content’.
14. We clarify that sincethe matter has been settled between the parties through consent,theissueraised by the Respondent/plaintiff in suit seeking a declarationthat Appellant/defendant is not an intermediary is left open, and the passing off this decree shall not be construed as issue estoppel against theRespondent/plaintiff, if futuredisputesarisebetween parties.The Respondent/plaintiff will be entitled to agitate the said issue in future disputes, which needless to state will be decided in accordance with law.
15. The appeal is hereby disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
16. The Appellant is directed to file an affidavit of its Director and/or authorised representative from Senior Management affirming the undertaking and this order within two (2) weeks. Copy of the board resolution evidencing that this order has been noted by the Board in its minutes and authorisedtheDirector and/orauthorised representative to file the affidavit shall be placed along with the said affidavit.
17. The Registry is directed to send this order to the Trial Court via email on the next date of hearing i.e., 15.04.2026 on which date the Trial Court willtakeon record this orderand closetheproceedings. The Registry of Trial Court is directed to draw up a decree sheet in terms of this order.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 10, 2026/mt/IB