IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 2305/2009

E2 LABS INFORMATION SECURITY PVT LTD and ANR ..... Plaintiffs

Through: Mr Pavan Duggal with Mr S N Akther, Advocates

versus

ROBERTO PREATONI and ORS.

..... Defendants
Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

ORDER
04.12.2009
Issue summons to the defendants through e-mail. The summons be made
returnable before the Joint Registrar on 31.03.2010.

IA No. 15729/2009 (exemption)

Allowed subject to the plaintiffs filing legible/certified copies and
translated copies of documents within eight weeks.
The application is disposed of.
IA No. 15730/2009 (exemption)
Allowed subject to the plaintiffs producing the originals at the time of
admission/denial.
The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 2305/2009
Page 1 of 3

IA No. 15728/2009 (under O.5 R.9 CPC)

By this application the plaintiffs seek service of summons to the
defendants via e-mail addresses given in the plaint. In view of the fact that
it has already been directed so, this application has been rendered infructuous
and hence is not pressed.
Dismissed as not pressed.
IA Nos. 15727/2009 (under O.39 R.1 and 2 CPC), 15731/2009 (under Section 79 of
the Amended Information Technology Act, 2000) and IA 15732/2009 (under Section
151 r/w Section 79 and 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000)
Issue notice to the non-applicants/defendants. Reply be filed within two
weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiff no.1 had
entered into a partnership agreement with PIT Consulting Spa Corporation which
is organized and incorporated under the laws of Italy through its partner Mr
Roberto Preatoni i.e., defendant no.1. It is contended that on account of
difference of opinion, the partnership agreement did not go through. It is
further contended that defendant nos 1 to 4
not only released confidential data concerning the plaintiff no.1 on the
internet they have also resorted to release of defamatory statements on the
internet. The plaintiffs have in this regard referred to documents at pages 87
to 94 of the document file. He further contends that based on the plaintiffs?
complaint a FIR dated 16.11.2009 has been registered with the police station
Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. It is contended that since the defamatory
statements are on the internet and are accessible within the jurisdiction
of this Court, the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit will lie
CS(OS) 2305/2009
Page 2 of 3

with this court. In this regard he has referred to the averments made in
Paragraphs 87, 88 and 91 of the plaint.
I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. I am of the view
that he has made out a prima facie case at this stage. The balance of
convenience also appears to be in favour of the plaintiffs. In the event
plaintiffs are not protected, their interest will be jeopardized. In these
circumstances, Computer Emergency Response Team of India (in short ?CERT-IN) is
directed to block the website of defendant nos 1 to 4 being www.zone-h.org till
the next date of hearing. It is further directed that defendant nos 1 to 4
shall refrain from issuing defamatory statements against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs shall comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
within one week.
Renotify before the Joint Registrar on 31.03.2010.
Dasti.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
DECEMBER 04, 2009
mb
CS(OS) 2305/2009
Page 3 of 3

12