[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-661285-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-661285-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","cscomm-7402026-application-for-temporary-injunction-and-blocking-access","CS(COMM) 740/2026 - Application for Temporary Injunction and Blocking Access","","Judgment of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in CS(COMM) 740/2026, delivered on 27.07.2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani. Plaintiffs seek temporary injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC against defendants described as “rogue websites” unlawfully streaming motion pictures, including prayer for blocking access by ISPs and directions to DoT/MEITY to notify ISPs to block infringing sites.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/cscomm-7402026-application-for-temporary-injunction-and-blocking-access/661285/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/cscomm-7402026-application-for-temporary-injunction-and-blocking-access/661285.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"dhado","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-28",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What relief is sought by the plaintiffs in this application?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction restraining the defendant websites from hosting and streaming infringing titles/upcoming titles and orders directing ISPs and relevant government departments to block access to the identified websites.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How does the plaintiffs’ counsel describe defendants 1-30?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Defendants 1-30 are described as “rogue websites” carrying the plaintiffs’ motion pictures without license or other authority, including streaming sometimes immediately upon release or even before release.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What roles are attributed to defendants 51-59 and defendants 60-61?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Defendants 51-59 are described as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), while defendants 60 and 61 are described as the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) of the Government of India, respectively, for directing notifications to block access.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},661285,1793162395,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":112,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":143},5909893218464,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","$~J-  \n* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  \nJudgment delivered on: 27.07.2026  \n+ CS(COMM) 740/2026  \nHOME BOX OFFICE INC & ORS.   Plaintiffs  \nThrough: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal with Ms. Suhasini Raina, Mr. Raghav Goyal, Mr. Aditya Sing Thakur, Mr. Affan Moin, Advocates.  \nversus  \nSTREAMZY.TO & ORS.   Defendants  \nThrough: Ms. Kruttika Vijay with Ms. Harshitha Rathod, Ms. Suvarna Singh, Advocates for D-31 .  \nMs. Shweta Sahu and Ms. Deeksha Pokhriyal, Advocates for D-39 .  \nMs. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC with Mr. Nipun Jain, GP for D-60 and 61.  \nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI  \nJ U D G M E N T  \nANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.  \nI.A. 18203/2026  \nBy way of the present application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiffs seek the following reliefs :  \n“i. Pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1-30 (and any such other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which appears to be associated with any of the Defendant Websites either based on its name, branding, the identity of its operator, or source of the content or discovered to provide additional means of accessing, the  \nSignature Not Verified  \nSigned By:VIKAS RAWAT  \nSigning Date:27 .07.2026 14:51  \nCS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 1 of 18  \nDefendant Websites and other domains/domain along with their subdomains and subdirectories, owners / website operators / entities which are discovered during the course of the proceedings to have been engaged in infringing the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and copyrights in the Titles and / or Upcoming Titles), its owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others incapacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and / or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, Titles and / or Upcoming Titles in which Plaintiffs have copyright and/or anyother right;  \niii. Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 51-59 (ISPs), their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, affiliates, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, to block access to the Defendant Nos. 1-30 websites identified by Plaintiffs in the instant suit (and such other websites which are discovered during the course of the proceedings and notified on Affidavit by the Plaintiffs to have been infringing the Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights, copyrights in the Titles and / or Upcoming Titles);  \niv. Pass an order directing the Defendant Nos. 60-61 (DoT and MEITY), to issue a notification calling upon the various Internet Service Providers registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit and such other websites which are discovered during the course of the proceedings and notified on Affidavit by the Plaintiffs to have been infringing the Plaintiffs exclusive rights and copyrights in the Titles and / or Upcoming Titles.  \nv. Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order in terms of the prayer clauses (i) to (iv) hereinabove;  \nvi Pass any other Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs.”  \nSignature Not Verified  \nSigned By:VIKAS RAWAT  \nSigning Date:27 .07.2026 14:51  \nCS(COMM) 740/2026 Page 2 of 18  \n2. Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits, that defendants Nos.1-30 are ‘rogue websites’ that are carrying motion pictures produced by the plaintiffs without any license or other authority to do so.  \n3. Mr. Rajagopal submits, that defendants Nos.31 to 50 are the domain name registrars (‘DNR’) who have registered the websites set-out as defendants Nos.1-30; defendants","cbCaiebljEHABrTG","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiebljEHABrTG","pdf",509968,"English","# Judgment\n## Court and case details\n## Reliefs sought in the application\n## Submissions regarding rogue websites and defendants","[{\"question\":\"What relief is sought by the plaintiffs in this application?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction restraining the defendant websites from hosting and streaming infringing titles/upcoming titles and orders directing ISPs and relevant government departments to block access to the identified websites.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the plaintiffs’ counsel describe defendants 1-30?\",\"answer\":\"Defendants 1-30 are described as “rogue websites” carrying the plaintiffs’ motion pictures without license or other authority, including streaming sometimes immediately upon release or even before release.\"},{\"question\":\"What roles are attributed to defendants 51-59 and defendants 60-61?\",\"answer\":\"Defendants 51-59 are described as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), while defendants 60 and 61 are described as the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) of the Government of India, respectively, for directing notifications to block access.\"}]","CS(COMM) 740/2026 - Application for Temporary Injunction and Blocking Access | PDF",76]