Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 10.02.2026
Pronounced on : 17.02.2026
Uploaded on : 17.02.2026
+ FAO 126/2023 and CM APPL. 27117/2023
M/S. GETMYUNI EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan
Singh Khurana, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja,
Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi,
Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha
Sadhwani, Advocates.
versus
MANGALAYATAN UNIVERSITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Advocate.
+ FAO 129/2023 and CM APPL. 27249/2023
M/S. GETMYUNI EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Udian Sharma, Mr. Jaitegan
Singh Khurana, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja,
Mr. Manav Mitra, Ms. Subhika Joshi,
Mr. Sahil Saraswat, and Ms. Harsha
Sadhwani, Advocates.
versus
USHA MARTIN UNIVERSITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
18:39:35
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals raise a common issue, and common submissions
have been addressed by the learned counsels in both the appeals;
accordingly, both the appeals are taken up together for consideration and
disposed of vide this common judgment.
2. The present appeals have been directed against the orders dated
28.03.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-01, South West District, Dwarka
Courts, New Delhi , in CS DJ ADJ Nos. 1009/2021 and 1004/2021, whereby
the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs came to be allowed and the appellant/defendant was
restrained from using the name, information, and details of the respondent
universities on its website ( www.getmyuni.com ). The appellant was further
directed to delete the names, information, and details of the respondents
from its website during the pendency of the suit. On appeals being filed, vide
order dated 22.05.2023, this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned
orders. It is informed that the matters are at the stage of plaintiffs‟ evidence.
3. Mr. Udian Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing
the impugned order, contends that the appellant is an education-technology
(“EdTech”) based start-up and acts as an online ready-to-go mall for
students wishing to know information about all the universities and make a
decision based on their requirements. The appellant is further stated to be
acting in public interest and in a bona fide manner, without any
misrepresentation/association with the universities mentioned on its website.
It is further contended that the appellant, on its website, displayed extracts
from publicly available data, which come under the exception clauses of the
Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is claimed that it‟s
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
18:39:35
common practice for online search platforms to state details of their
respective subject matter for their target audience, in order to provide one-
stop access to everything related to the query under one umbrella. The
appellant has published on its website details of various universities/top
colleges offering B.Tech courses in India for the year 2023. The appellant
has followed ranking parameters and weightage used by the National
Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) to rank the colleges. It is submitted
that besides NIRF ranking, the appellant has also published lists of colleges
as per the rankings done by „The Week‟, „India Today‟ magazines etc.
Further, a list has also been provided in terms of zone-wise colleges in India
as well as the fees charged by them, as available on their website. Learned
counsel contends that the Trial Court erred in passing the impugned order as
the respondents had preferred the suit being disgruntled by the non-
execution of the MoU between the parties. Further, the impugned orders
have caused irreparable harm to the appellant as well as deprived numerous
students of valuable information about the universities displayed by the
appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has primarily
contended that the appellant‟s search platform, i.e., its website, does not lead
to the same ranking for the respondent universities as may be available on
the Google Search Engine. It is stated that while on Google, the links to the
websites of the respondents appear at the second page. The appellant‟s
website, however, doesn‟t yield the same result. It is stated that the aforesaid
consequence is disparaging the respondents‟ reputation. Learned counsel has
drawn the attention of the Court to various web pages to submit that the
names of the universities are not appearing exactly in terms of the rankings
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
18:39:35
given by NIRF.
5. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant has placed on
record emails which show that there were discussions between the parties
wherein proposals for lead generation for the respondent universities were
exchanged. The respondents, through an email dated 23.02.2020, also
showed interest in the same and gave the go-ahead to the appellant to start
the campaign. Apparently, the talks could not fructify, and the respondents
filed the underlying suits for injunction with the following prayers:-
“ 01. Pass a decree of Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the
defendant thereby restraining it and/or its servants, agents and other
associates from using the name, information, details about the plaintiff
university on the website www.getmyuni.com.
02. Direct the defendant to delete the name, information and details
related to the plaintiff university on its website www.getmyuni.com.
03. Direct the defendant to pay damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- to plaintiff. ”
6. Along with the suits, the respondents had filed documents relating to
the universities, like the gazette notification, authority letter, master data,
accolades received, and the communications exchanged between the parties.
The documents also include the search results displayed on the search
engine www.google.co.in as well as on the appellant‟s website
www.getmyuni.com . The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has
failed to appreciate that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has
tinkered with the NIRF rankings, added its own editorial comments on the
rankings, or commented on the quality of the services provided by the
ranked institutions. As noted above, various colleges are shown as per the
NIRF rankings as well as per the rankings by other platforms like „The
Week‟ and „India Today‟. Further, a zone-wise ranking is there, which
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
18:39:35
includes a „featured ranking‟. The aforesaid list had shown the respondent
universities as having a score of 4.1 out of 5. It is an unconvincing argument
made by the respondent that the rankings per se, shown on the website, are
disparaging to its professional reputation when the rankings displayed on the
website are referenced to the rankings available in the public domain and are
open-sourced.
7. The respondent has neither challenged the rankings made by the
ranking agencies, nor has it exercised its right to be forgotten by making a
request to Google to efface its existence from the Google search results.
8. The respondent is aggrieved by the hyperlink provided on the
appellant‟s website that links the appellant‟s website to the respondent‟s
website. However, there is no allegation of appropriation of the intellectual
property of the respondents by the appellant or any attempt to claim
association with the respondents‟ marks.
9. The respondents are unable to make out a prima facie case in their
favour. The appellant has a right to use publicly available information about
the respondents, as long as the same is not disparagingly presented by the
appellant, as explained above. Hence, the impugned orders in both the
appeals are set aside.
10. Both the present appeals are disposed of in the above terms along with
the pending applications.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
ga
Signature Not Verified
FAO 126/2023 & FAO 129/2023 Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed
By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI
Signing Date:17.02.2026
18:39:35