there is no stay as per the Ld. Counsels for the Plaintiffs. Considering that the allegations made are similar to the allegations which were directed to be deleted by the said order, a prima facie case is made out for grant of injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused if the interim order as prayed for is not granted. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Defendants 13, submit that the Defendants are willing to block the said URLs/disable them from the India domain. Till the next date, the Defendants are directed to remove/block/disable the URLs and weblinks connected to the offending video for the India domain. The URLs are mentioned at pages 19 to 24 of the documents filed by the Plaintiff. The blocking/disabling be given effect forthwith and, in any event, no later than 72 hours. 7. The question as to whether the said URLs also deserve to be blocked globally, would be heard on the next date. A short reply on this issue be filed by the Defendants within two weeks. 8. The basic subscriber information for the entity/person/s, which/who has uploaded the said video be placed in a sealed cover.‖ Thus, an interim order was granted directing removal of the offending URL and weblinks for the India domain. The platforms submitted that insofar as global blocking of the videos is concerned, they wish to make submissions on this issue. The above order of injunction continues to operate and parties have been heard on the issue of global blocking. 4. Thereafter, the platforms have placed on record the Basic Subscriber Information (hereinafter ‗BSI‘) relating to the uploading of the videos. Pleadings have also been completed by the parties. On 23rd May, 2019, while the matter was part heard, the Court had directed the platforms to seek CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 3 of 76