1.
ORDER
%
11.02.2020
This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 4th February, 2020.
2.
The counsel for defendant no.1 Herdsceneand states that defendant no.1
Herdsceneand withdraws the impugned posts and allegations therein and
expresses regret for the same. It is further stated that the defendant no.1
‘Herdsceneand’ agrees to the suit being decreed against it in terms of prayers ‘A’
and ‘B’ of paragraph 45 of the plaint dated 16th September, 2019.
3.
The senior counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions states that the plaintiff
agrees that the identity of defendant no.1 Herdsceneand remains anonymous and
does not press the other prayers against defendant no.1 Herdsceneand.
4.
The order dated 22nd January, 2020 records that the defendant no.1
Herdsceneand though had sought anonymity qua particulars of the person whose
statement was published by the defendant no.1 and which is alleged to be
defamatory, but was not representing that person. I have enquired from the senior
counsels for the plaintiff and defendant no.1 Herdsceneand, the need for making
any clarification in this respect.
5.
Both state that there is no need in this regard.
6.
The senior counsel for the applicant in IA No.15586/2019 viz. Indian
Journalists Union (IJU) has contended that the compromise between the plaintiff
and the defendant no.1 Herdsceneand cannot affect the rights of the applicant IJU
to write or report on the story which had appeared on the platform of defendant
no.2 Instagram LLC from the handle of defendant no.1 Herdsceneand. It is
contended that the injunction in terms of prayer paragraphs ‘A’ and ‘B’ of
paragraph 45 of the plaint would affect the rights of the members of the applicant
and the same cannot be permitted in terms of dicta of the Supreme Court in
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
CS(OS) 483/2019
Page 2 of 5