Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~O-32

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010442582022
+ CS(COMM) 819/2022
Date of Decision: 05.11.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

AMITABH BACHCHAN
PRATIKSHA
10TH ROAD, JVPD SCHEME
MUMBAI 400 049
.....PLAINTIFF
( Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand,
Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Bhavya
Verma, Ms. Unnati Gambani, Mr. Sanjeevi Sishadri, Ms. Shreya
Sethi, Mr. Krisna Gambhir and Mr. Ritvik Sharma, Advocates. )

versus


1. RAJAT NAGI
RAR-210 RAJENDRA ARIHANT TOWER
JANAKPURI, DELHI 110 058
PHONE: NOT AVAILABLE

2. RANA PARTAB SINGH
15 NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD
KOLKATA 700 001

3. MANOJ PUBLICATIONS
NO. 761, MAIN ROAD
BURARI, DELHI 110 084

4. SWAG SHIRTS
2 (1), VETTRI VINAYAKAR STREET
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 1 of 9

MURUNGAPALAYAM SOUTH
TIRUPUR 641603

5. TAMATINA
85, M.P NAGAR
GWALIOR 474009

6. RAGHU SHARMA
5570 WHISTLER CR
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
L4Z3R5, CANADA

7. GODADDY.COM LLC
14455 NORTH HAYDEN ROAD
SUITE 219, SCOTSDALE
ARIZONA 85260
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
( Defendant No.7 deleted from array of parties vide Order dated
24.02.2026 )

8. MAHESH PATEL
HIT MEDIA
2251 PIMMIT DR.
FALLS CHURCH
VIRGINIA 22043
UNITED STATES

9. DYNADOT LLC
210 S ELLSWORTH AVE
#345 SAN MATEO
CALIFORNIA 94401
UNITED STATES .

AND

John Doe(s)
....DEFENDANTS

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 2 of 9

( Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal and Mr. Parth Mahajan, Advocates for
D-1.
Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Advocate for D-3.
Ms. Tina Garg, Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Mr. Annirudh Gupta, Advocates
along with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, AR for D-5.
Mr. Kushal Kumr and Ms. Tanya Manik, Advocates for D-8. )

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 30837/2026 (by plaintiff U/O-XXIII, R-3 of the CPC, seeking decree
of suit against defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 & 8)
1. The application has been filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant
nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 seeking decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
2. The suit has been instituted inter alia for permanent injunction
restraining the misappropriation of the plaintiff‟s publicity rights, passing
off, and for damages. The plaintiff has impleaded seven alleged infringers,
two domain name registrars as proforma parties, and unidentified infringers
as defendant no. 10 (John Doe). Defendant no. 1 developed a mobile
application titled „Amitabh Bachchan Video Call‟; defendant no. 2
circulated WhatsApp messages bearing the plaintiff‟s photograph to
promote a purported „Kaun Banega Crorepati‟ lottery; defendant no. 3 sold a
general knowledge quiz book with the plaintiff‟s image on its cover;
defendant nos. 4 and 5 sold T-shirts and wall posters, respectively, bearing
his photographs; defendant nos. 6 and 8 are the registrants of the domain
names <amitabhbachchan.com> and <amitabhbachchan.in>, respectively;
and defendant nos. 7 and 9 are the registrars of the said domain names.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 3 of 9

3. Vide order dated 25.11.2022, this Court granted an ex-parte ad-
interim injunction in terms of paragraph 32(i) and (ii) of I.A. 19727/2022,
including against the John Does, and issued directions in terms of paragraph
32(iii) and (iv) thereof to the necessary statutory authorities and the Telecom
Service Providers.
4. The matter was called out for hearing on 09.10.2026.. It was found
that some of the parties had explored the possibility of amicable settlement.
However, on account of some logistical issues, the settlement could not be
finalized. The Court, thus, granted further opportunity to the parties to
complete the necessary formalities and to place the formal settlement on
record.
5. The hearing was, thereafter, deferred to 16.11.2026 in terms of
paragraph no. 6 of the order. The Court had directed that in the event of non-
settlement or incomplete settlement, and if the plaintiff wished to pursue the
suit on any of the claims or issues, the plaintiff shall remain personally
present enabling the Court to exercise its power under Order X Rule 2 read
with Order V Rule 3 of the CPC and Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023.
6. By way of the present application, it has been brought to the notice of
the Court that the matter stands settled qua defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8. The
terms of the settlement have been enumerated in paragraph no. 7 of the
application. The said defendants acknowledge the plaintiff‟s publicity rights
and his right to privacy.
7. Defendant no. 1 states that he has taken steps to delete the mobile
application „Amitabh Bachchan Video Call‟; defendant no. 3 states that it
has discontinued the publication of its „General Knowledge Quizbook‟
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 4 of 9

bearing the plaintiff‟s image; defendant no. 5 states that it has discontinued
the sale of posters bearing the plaintiff‟s images, name and likeness; and
defendant no. 8 states that he deleted the domain name
<amitabhbachchan.in> in November, 2022 and made no monetary gains
therefrom. Each of them has undertaken not to use the plaintiff‟s name,
image, voice, likeness or any other aspect of his persona in future without
his express permission, and has agreed to suffer a decree in terms of
paragraph no. 76(a) to (c) of the plaint. The undertakings bind their legal
heirs, representatives and assigns-in-business. Subject thereto, the plaintiff
has forgone the claims under paragraph no. 76(d) to (k) of the plaint against
them.
8. Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC authorises the Court to pass a decree
on a compromise whereby the parties have adjusted the suit “wholly or in
part”, and such decree is to be passed “so far as it relates to the parties to the
suit”. A settlement with some of the defendants can, therefore, be given
effect to qua those defendants alone. The essentials of the provision are that
(i) the compromise is lawful, (ii) it is reduced in writing, and (iii) it is duly
signed by the parties arriving at the compromise. The Supreme Court in
1
Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, has held as under:
10. Under Rule 3 as it now stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted
wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise
must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a completed
agreement between them. To constitute an adjustment, the agreement or
compromise must itself be capable of being embodied in a decree. …
9. The application is in writing and has been signed by the plaintiff and
defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8. Its terms are complete and capable of being

1
(1988) 1 SCC 270.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 5 of 9

embodied in a decree. The settlement has been agreed upon without fear or
coercion, and the parties appear to have entered into it on their own volition.
Nothing has been pointed out which would render it void or voidable under
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that the
settlement meets the essentials of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, and the
parties shall be bound by it.
10. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. The suit stands decreed
qua defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 in terms of paragraph no. 76(a) to (c) of the
plaint and in terms of paragraph no. 7 of the instant application.
11. Let the decree sheet be drawn up by the Registry. The application,
which embodies the terms of the compromise, shall form part of the decree
sheet.
I.A. 30836/2026 (by plaintiff u/O-8, R-10 of the CPC seeking decree of
suit against def-2,4,6 & 9 in terms of para-8,9 & 11 of application)
12. The plaintiff has also filed the present application under Order VIII
Rule 10 of the CPC seeking for the following reliefs:
“ a) Decree the suit against Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 in terms of
Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 11 of the present application under Order VIII
Rule 10 of the CPC;
b) Decree the suit against Defendant No. 10 in terms of Paragraph Nos.
10 and 11 of the present application ;”
13. Qua defendant no. 7, it is pointed out that the said defendant has
already been deleted vide order dated 24.02.2026. Defendant no. 10
comprises the John Does. The plaintiff has made the following averments
qua defendant nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9:
“8. Of the remaining Defendants, Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 have not
appeared nor filed Written Statements, and consequently their right to file
their Written Statements stands closed vide order dated 25th September
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 6 of 9

2023.
9. In view of the failure of Defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 to appear pursuant
to summons and present the written statement called for by the Hon’ble
Court, it is open for the Court to invoke Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC to
pronounce judgment against them or to pass such other order as this
Hon’ble Court may think fit. Invoking the said provision, it is submitted
that this Hon’ble Court may, in view of the aforesaid default of the said
Defendants, pronounce judgment against the said Defendants as prayed
for in the Plaint.”
14. Thus, the said defendants, despite service, have chosen not to appear,
and no written statement has been presented on their behalf. Their right to
do so stands closed since 25.09.2023, and in a commercial suit, the time for
filing the written statement cannot be extended beyond the period stipulated
in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
15. However, the provision of Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC is not to be
applied mechanically. The Supreme Court in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir
2
Ahmad, has held as under:
28. What emerges from a reading of Balraj Taneja [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil
Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396], with which we wholeheartedly concur, is that
only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved on
account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the
defendant who has not filed the written statement; but if the plaint itself
suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe for
the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the
facts. …
16. In the same decision, the Supreme Court cautioned that the power
ought to be invoked with circumspection where some of several defendants
contest the suit, so as to avoid inconsistent decrees. No such situation arises
here. None of the defendants has filed a written statement disputing the
plaintiff‟s case, and defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 have themselves accepted

2
(2024) 4 SCC 696.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 7 of 9

the plaintiff‟s rights and suffered a decree.
3
17. In Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, this Court
recognised that “the right to control commercial use of human identity is the
right to publicity”, and held that liability for its infringement turns on
“Validity: The plaintiff owns an enforceable right in the identity or persona
of a human being” and “Identifiability: The Celebrity must be identifiable
from defendant‟s unauthorized use.” Both elements are satisfied. The
impugned uses employ the plaintiff‟s very name and photographs, for
commercial gain and without his consent, and falsely suggest his
endorsement. The plaint does not disclose any disputed question of fact
requiring trial, and no purpose would be served in relegating the plaintiff to
lead ex-parte evidence, which would merely repeat the plaint. Rule 27 of the
Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 also
enables the Court to pass a summary judgment in such a case.
18. The interim injunction dated 25.11.2022 operated against the John
Does as well. The plaint discloses a continuing pattern of anonymous misuse
of the plaintiff‟s persona, through websites, applications, posters and
messaging platforms, which the plaintiff cannot track to identified persons.
The decree in terms of paragraph no. 76(a) to (c) shall, therefore, also
operate against defendant no. 10.
19. Liberty is also granted to the plaintiff, as prayed in paragraph no. 11
of the application, to institute fresh proceedings in the event of a fresh cause
of action.
20. The Court, thus, finds that the suit deserves to be decreed qua
defendant nos. 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 in terms of the prayers mentioned at
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 8 of 9

paragraph no. 76(a) to (c) of the plaint.
21. The application stands allowed. Let the decree sheet be drawn up by
the Registry.
CS(COMM) 819/2022
22. Defendant nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 shall abide by the terms of the settlement.
23. Defendant nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 and 10 have suffered the decree in terms
of the prayers mentioned at paragraph no. 76(a) to (c) of the plaint. The ex-
parte ad-interim injunction dated 25.11.2022 stands merged with the decree.
24. Therefore, in view of the order passed in I.A. 30837/2026 filed under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and I.A. 30836/2026 filed under Order VIII
Rule 10 of the CPC, the suit, along with pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
25. The date already fixed, i.e., 16.11.2026, stands cancelled.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
aks/NK

3
2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:01:01
Page 9 of 9