Lakshminarayanan Bhuvaneswari Shaaran vs Vaibhav Vats Shukla

Court
Delhi High Court

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 23 September 2026
Pronounced on: 03 November 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010261632024
+ CS(OS) 367/2024
LAKSHMINARAYANAN BHUVANESWARI SHAARAN
.....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Mr.
Rishabh Kapur and Ms.
Priyanshi Goel, Advs.
versus
VAIBHAV VATS SHUKLA .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Adil Singh Booparai,
Mr. Anmol Joshi, Mr.
Ronit Bose and Mr. Kartik
Nagpal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
O R D E R
% 03.11.2026
I.A. 10489/2024
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Defendant for
return or rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order VII
Rule 10 & 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
refer to as ‘CPC’) on ground that this Court does not have the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit praying, inter
alia , permanent and perpetual injunction against the Defendant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 1 of 15

and damages of Rs. 2,00,05,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Five
Thousand Only) for defaming the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff and Defendant are two directors of
Inventphile Ventures Private Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
company’)
4. The defendant, alleges that the defendant made defamatory
statements concerning the Plaintiff and other investors of the
Company, with the intent of causing financial and reputation
harm to the Plaintiff by sending defamatory emails dated
23.11.2023, 16.12.2023 and 16.02.2024 to various third parties,
including the investors of the Company and also investors in a
separate venture of the Plaintiff, whereby it has cast aspersions
on the character and competence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
defamatory statements, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the
instant suit in this Court at New Delhi.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
5. Challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,
learned Counsel for the Defendant submits that the defendant is a
resident of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and plaintiff is a resident of
Chennai. Neither plaintiff nor the defendant are residents of New
Delhi
6. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the defendant
that the plaintiff received an email dated 04.03.2024 from a
journalist at Inc42, a digital media portal based out of New Delhi,
informing the Plaintiff that the journalist was writing an article
concerning the disputes pending between the parties before this
Court as well as the Learned NCLT. According to the Plaintiff,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 2 of 15

the Defendant communicated certain slanderous statements to the
said journalist so the same may be published to public at large.
Thereafter, on 08.03.2024, the said publication published an
article titled "Exclusive: Brine.fi Founders, Elevation Capital in
Dock over NCLT Petition on IP Theft, Crypto Syphoning” on the
portal’s website.
7. Learned counsel for the Defendant submits that the email
dated 04.03.2024 does not disclose that the Defendant
communicated any statement directly to the journalist. It merely
states that the journalist was pursuing a story concerning the
NCLT proceedings instituted by the Defendant.
8. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has sought to
establish a nexus between the defendant and the aforesaid email,
which, according to the Defendant, does not exist. It is, therefore,
contended that the registered address of Inc42 being situated at
New Delhi, by itself, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction upon
this Court, particularly when the said address has no nexus with
the Defendant or the alleged act of defamation, and, also the
publication/publisher is not the party to the suit.
9. It is also submitted that a bare perusal of the aforesaid
article published by Inc42 merely summarises the dispute
between the parties, if any cause of action arises from the
publication, the same would be against the publisher not the
defendant. Inc42 is not the party in the present suit, thus
eliminating Delhi as the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 3 of 15

10. To buttress the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for
the defendant relies upon the judgement of this Court in Escorts
Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia, 2019 SCC Online Del 7607
(hereinafter referred to as “Escorts”), wherein it was held that
mere accessibility of the allegedly defamatory statements within
Delhi would not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon the
Courts at Delhi.
11. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that, this
court while deciding the nuances of territorial jurisdiction in
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments (P)
Ltd, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 333 (hereinafter referred to as
“Sameer Wankhede”), divided the principles governing
online/cyber defamation in into two parts (i) merger principle (ii)
maximum wrong principle.
12. It is submitted that the plaintiff alleges that their reputation
has been harmed across the country, which according to the
learned Counsel for the Defendant includes the residence of the
defendant i.e., Kanpur. He further submits that where the
allegedly defamatory material is disseminated at multiple places,
the question of territorial jurisdiction has to be examined in
accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgements.
13. Learned Counsel for the defendant points out that it is the
Plaintiff’s case that the defamatory material have been widely
seen and distributed on the internet, which is rather an admission
by the Plaintiff that the wrong has been done at the place of
residence of the Defendant and thus the plaintiff has no choice
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 4 of 15

but sue the defendant at the place of Defendant’s residence i.e,
Kanpur.
14. The learned counsel for the defendant further sought to
analyse the facts of the present case in the context of the
applicable principles governing territorial jurisdiction. According
to him, ‘the Merger Principle’ is the principle that ought to be
applied in the present case. The Merger Principle, in essence,
provides that where the place at which the alleged wrong is
committed coincides with the place where the defendant resides
or carries on business, the Plaintiff may institute the suit before
the court having jurisdiction over such place. Applying this
principle to the facts of the present case, the learned counsel
submitted that the defendant resides in Kanpur and, therefore, the
plaintiff may institute the suit before the competent court at
Kanpur
15. It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the
defendant that section 19 of the Act confers a limited and
conditional choice of forum upon a plaintiff in a suit for
defamation, namely, either the Court within whose jurisdiction
the alleged wrong is committed or the Court within whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides or works for gain, provided that
the place where the wrong is done is different from the place of
the defendant’s residence. In the present case, the plaint is
conspicuously bereft of any substantial, specific or material
averments, much less proof, demonstrating that the alleged act of
defamation was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 5 of 15

16. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the plaint
neither discloses the place of publication, transmission or
initiation of the alleged defamatory communications within Delhi
nor particulars of any identifiable person in Delhi in whose
estimation the plaintiff’s reputation is stated to have suffered. In
the absence of any pleaded or substantiated facts to show that the
‘wrong’ was done within Delhi, the statutory option under
Section 19 CPC is unavailable to the plaintiff, leaving the
plaintiff with no choice but to institute the suit before the Court
within whose jurisdiction the defendant admittedly resides, i.e.,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
17. Thus, relying upon the said judgments, the learned counsel
for the defendant submits that this court does not have any
jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant suit. Hence, it is
submitted that the present suit is liable to be returned/rejected.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
18. In reply, the learned senior Counsel for the plaintiff
submits that vide order dated 08.05.2024, this court before
issuing summons in the instant Suit enquired about the aspect of
territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to the plaintiff to file
documents qua the same. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff
filed an application for additional documents, viz. I.A. No.
29987/2024, which was subsequently allowed vide Order dated
16.05.2025. It is submitted that this Court after being prima facie
satisfied regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to
adjudicate the instant Suit, issued summons to the defendant vide
Order dated 21.05.2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 6 of 15

19. Learned senior Counsel for the plaintiff further submits
that slanderous communication was made by the Defendant to
Inc42, a digital media portal based out of New Delhi. The
Plaintiff has filed documents to prove the above, including the
email received by the Plaintiff from Inc42 as well as the
registration and contact details of Inc42 in New Delhi. Therefore,
the territorial jurisdiction to try this suit should be of New Delhi.
20. It is further submitted that the defendant has sought to
place a selective reading of portions from the judgments of this
Court in “ Escorts” and “Sameer Wankhede” and the same are
required to be considered in the context of the fact scenarios in
those cases as juxtaposed to the instant Suit. Learned senior
Counsel submits that this Court in Escorts was concerned with a
defamatory Tweet made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.
The only association made by the plaintiff with New Delhi was
the fact that the defamatory tweet was accessible across the
globe, including in New Delhi. On the contrary, the Plaintiff has
categorically explained the association of the publication of
defamatory material in New Delhi and his reputation being
harmed in New Delhi. It is submitted that the Parties are not
strangers to New Delhi. In fact, the Company has its registered
office in New Delhi and the Plaintiff has categorically stated that
the defamatory material was accessed, read, and circulated in
New Delhi, including by specific investors based in New Delhi.
21. It is further submitted that the plaintiff in Escorts had not
made any averments in the Plaint regarding the Plaintiff having
suffered any loss of business or reputation at Delhi. In fact, in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 7 of 15

Escorts, the Court considered that the business of the Plaintiff
was of tractors and it was likely to suffer loss in rural areas rather
in Delhi. On the contrary, the Plaintiff herein is engaged in the
cryptocurrency space and is likely to face loss of business and
reputation in Delhi as compared to Kanpur, where the loss, if at
all, is likely to be minuscule. No suggestion was made in Escorts
regarding any person from New Delhi taking any action in
furtherance of the defamatory publication. On the contrary, the
Plaintiff herein has categorically pleaded the same.
22. With regards to the judgment of Sameer Wankhede, it is
submitted that the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. The
Parties therein were both residents of Mumbai and the plaintiff
had pleaded in the Plaint that the wrong had occurred in Mumbai.
In the instant case, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the
wrong has occurred in New Delhi. The plaintiff has further
adverted to investors based in India as well as abroad. The said
persons are identifiable and have tangible interest in the working
of the Company and of the management of the plaintiff. Some of
such investors are clearly in New Delhi, while none of them are
based in Kanpur. Thus, it is submitted that this is different from
the case in Sameer Wankhede where the third parties were based
across the country, including in Mumbai.
23. It is further submitted that in the instant case, there is no
association of the defamation caused to the plaintiff by the
defendant with the city of Kanpur, but for the fact that the
Defendant ordinarily resides in Kanpur. Whereas, there are no
investors of the Company or of the other entities of the plaintiff
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 8 of 15

who are residents or otherwise work for gain in Kanpur. It is
further submitted that the Plaintiff is not aware of any
current/potential investor or customer of the Company or the
crypto currency products of the Plaintiff’s other entities to be
based in Kanpur. The plaintiff has no business or current
business interest in Kanpur. On the contrary, the plaintiff is
aware of current/potential investors and customers of the
Company and of the other entities of the Plaintiff who are
residents or otherwise work for gain in New Delhi. In fact, the
presence of investors and customers having knowledge and
interest in crypto currency and allied products was one of the
reasons that the Company was registered in New Delhi. It is
submitted that in Sameer Wankhede , in fact, inures to the benefit
of the plaintiff as inasmuch as it holds that a suit for defamation
is maintainable if the plaintiff pleads in whose eyes the reputation
of the Plaintiff has been lowered.
24. Further, it is submitted that the residence of the Plaintiff is
Dubai and the natural residence is of Chennai, but the harm to
reputation was done via emails at New Delhi. Moreover, the
company is incorporated at New Delhi, the place of residence of
most of the investor who were privy to the emails are residents of
New Delhi. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that he
would proceed on the basis of the principle of the ‘maximum
wrong rule’.
ANALYSIS
25. I have considered the rival submissions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 9 of 15

26. Learned senior Counsel for the plaintiff has tried to
distinguish the facts of this case from “ Escorts” and “ Sameer
Wankhede ”. However, he is ad-idem with learned Counsel for
defendant on the law enunciated in these judgments.
27. As the issue before this Court is in respect of territorial
jurisdiction, it takes me to Section 19 of CPC, which is
reproduced as under: -
“19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or
movables -
Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person
or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides,
or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be
instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said
Courts.”
28. Perusal of Section 19 shows that a suit for defamation can
be filed (a) where defendant resides or (b) where the wrong was
committed. Admittedly defendant does not reside in Delhi as he
is a resident of Kanpur. Thus, there is no dispute that the Kanpur
Courts will have jurisdiction to try this case. Now it is to be seen
as to whether this Court at New Delhi also has jurisdiction to try
it. For this, the Court is to locate from the averments of the plaint
as to at what place, the offence was committed.
29. In case of defamation, it can be said that a defamatory act
has an impact worldwide. However, this does not mean that
every Court on earth has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for
defamation. Hence, the “merger rule” and “maximum wrong
rule” come into play. Both these rules have been discussed in
detail in Escorts and Sameer Wankhede .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 10 of 15

30. As already stated, there is no doubt that this suit can be
filed at Kanpur, where defendant resides. The only issue is
whether this suit can also be filed at New Delhi. Needless to say,
that only “maximum wrong rule” would permit the Courts at
Delhi to have territorial jurisdiction. “Maximum wrong rule”
confers jurisdiction to a Court where maximum injury is suffered
by the plaintiff.
31. For this purpose, this Court would advert it’s attention to
the plaint. Case of plaintiff is that a company with the name
“Celebrify Connect Private Limited” was incorporated on
15.01.2020 with the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. The
plaintiff and defendant were its two directors and share holders.
Operations of the company were changed to development of
centralised online crypto currency exchange under the name of
“Krypto” and the name of the company was also changed to
“Inventphile Ventures Private Limited”. On 23.01.2020 five
individual investors agreed to invest Rs. 5 lakhs each in exchange
for 1% equity each in the company. In February, 2021, the
centralised online crypto currency exchange under the name of
Krypto went live for its users in form of a mobile application
‘ Krypto: Bitcoin Investment ’ and in form of a website ‘ www.
Letskrypto.com ’.
32. Investments were also received from an investor company.
It is averred that while plaintiff was CEO of the company and
entire banking of the company was under the control of the
defendant. It was later on decided that the operations of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 11 of 15

company would be shifted to a Singapore based company viz
‘ Inventphile Ventures Pte. Ltd ’.
33. However, defendant indulged in various activities, which
were detrimental to the interest of the company. Therefore, a
show cause notice was given to him by the company on
09.09.2022 and later on in Extraordinary General Meeting
(EOGM), the powers of defendant were considerably diluted.
34. It is alleged in para 25 of the plaint that being highly
disgruntled, defendant embarked upon a defamatory campaign
against the plaintiff. On 23.11.2023, he sent a defamatory email
containing various false and malicious statements against the
plaintiff and the email was marked to the investor of the
company as well as to the existing and potential investments in
other ventures of the plaintiff.
35. On 16.12.2023, defendant sent another defamatory email
to various third parties including the existing and potential
investors. On 16.02.2024, the defendant again wrote a
defamatory email to current/potential investors.
36. I am not going to refer to the contents of these allegedly
defamatory emails because at present I am only dealing with the
issue of territorial jurisdiction.
37. In para 76 of plaint, it is averred that cause of action arose
on 04.03.2024 when plaintiff received an email from a Digital
Media Publication based in New Delhi confirming certain
slanderous remarks were made by defendant against him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 12 of 15

38. Here I would like to refer to Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede
only, cited by learned Counsel for defendant as it discusses and
relies upon Escorts in detail .
39. In this case , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar
Kaurav has described in detail the case law on the issue, and has
crystallised the law as under: -
“66. From the discussion above, in relation to Section 19 of the
CPC and the wrong of cyber/online defamation, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
66.1 Where the wrong has not been done within the jurisdiction
of more than one Court:
a. The plaintiff may sue at the place where he resides, or in
the case of a company, the place where it has its registered
office. When he/it sues at such a natural forum, there is no
requirement to specifically plead in whose eyes the reputation
of the plaintiff has been lowered; and
b. The plaintiff is also entitled to sue at the place where he
is not resident, or in the case of company, a place where it is
not registered, but in such a case, he/it is required to plead in
whose eyes the reputation of the plaintiff has been lowered.
66.2 Where the wrong has been done within the jurisdiction of
more than one Court:
c. If wrong has also been done within the jurisdiction of the
Court in which the defendant resides, carries on business or
works for gain, the plaintiff must sue at this place of merger and
at no place else; and
d. If wrong has not been done within the jurisdiction of the
Court in which the defendant resides, the plaintiff must sue at
the place where maximum wrong has been done, which
normally shall be where he is a resident or in case of a
corporation, where it has its registered office. However, he/it
can also sue at an unnatural forum, claiming maximum wrong
to have been done there, if the wrong done at the natural forum,
in comparison to the place in which the plaintiff seeks to sue, is
miniscule.
40. In light of the aforesaid principles, it is necessary to look
in to the contents of the plaint. It is nowhere pleaded in the plaint
that the wrong in question was committed at Kanpur, where
defendant resides. Therefore, ‘merger rule’ does not apply.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 13 of 15

41. Now let us see the application of ‘maximum wrong rule’ .
In para 77 of the plaint, it is stated that defamatory emails sent by
defendant were published in New Delhi. It is averred that
slanderous communication was made by defendant to Inc42, a
digital media portal based in New Delhi, and the plaintiff also
received multiple calls from various investors in the company
throughout the country including from New Delhi and abroad, as
well as from investors in his other ventures questioning the
functioning of the company. It is further averred that the
company’s registered address is situated in New Delhi where a
lot of current and potential customers of the company and other
ventures of the plaintiff are situated. It is mentioned that
reputation of plaintiff has also been harmed in New Delhi and the
plaintiff suffered financial and reputational loss in New Delhi.
42. I am of the opinion that para 77 of the plaint is sufficiently
covered by the “maximum wrong rule ”. One of the arguments of
the applicant-defendant is that plaintiff has not impleaded the
company having registered address at Delhi as a party, therefore,
“maximum wrong rule” would not be applicable. I disagree with
the submissions. The contents of the plaint more specifically para
77 are enough to show that the real harm to the reputation of the
plaintiff is caused in New Delhi because registered address of the
company, with which parties and investors are connected, is
situated in New Delhi. Therefore, the address of the company
becomes a determining factor for identifying the place where
maximum harm to the reputation of plaintiff has been caused.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 14 of 15

The situs of the company does not make it a party to this suit. It
points out as to where the offence had maximum effect.
43. I find substance in the arguments of the learned Senior
Counsel for the plaintiff, that at Kanpur, the plaintiff’s business
and reputation has no value. The real value of his reputation
exists at New Delhi because of the reason that the company, in
which the parties are Directors, is situated at New Delhi, and
where as per the averments in the plaint, main shareholders and
current and prospective investors/customers reside. Thus, the
‘ maximum wrong rule ’ offers territorial jurisdiction to this Court.
44. Consequently, I find no substance in the application.
45. Accordingly, application is dismissed.
46. List remaining applications on 08.12.2026.
VINOD KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 03, 2026 / cd / Avneet
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:03:51
I.A. 10489/2024 in CS (OS) 367/2024 Page 15 of 15