This judgment decrees the suit only in terms of paragraph 76(a) to (c) of the plaint, the text of which the judgment does not set out. It does not award damages, and the plaintiff has forgone the claims under paragraph 76(d) to (k) against the four settling defendants. Defendant No. 7, a domain registrar, had already been deleted from the array of parties on 24 February 2026, so no decree is passed against it.
- Case
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:10033
- Bench
- Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
- Judgment by
- Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
- Case numbers
- CS(COMM) 819/2022
- Outcome
- Suit decreed against defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 on a recorded settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, and against defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 (John Does) under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC; the suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.
The decision
The Delhi High Court has decreed Amitabh Bachchan’s suit for protection of his personality and publicity rights. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed a decree against four defendants on a settlement recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and pronounced judgment against five more, including the unidentified John Does, under Order VIII Rule 10, all in terms of paragraph 76(a) to (c) of the plaint.
The ad-interim injunction of 25 November 2022 stands merged in the decree. The Registry will draw up the decree sheet, the compromise application forming part of it, and the suit, with all pending applications, stands disposed of. The date fixed for 16 November 2026 stands cancelled.
Background
The suit sought a permanent injunction against misappropriation of the plaintiff’s publicity rights, passing off, and damages. The plaintiff impleaded seven alleged infringers, two domain name registrars as proforma parties, and unidentified infringers as defendant No. 10, the John Does.
The judgment records what each defendant is said to have done: a mobile application titled ‘Amitabh Bachchan Video Call’, WhatsApp messages promoting a purported ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ lottery, a quiz book, T-shirts and posters bearing his image, and two domain names, with two registrars as proforma parties.
On 25 November 2022 the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction, including against the John Does, and issued directions to the statutory authorities and telecom service providers. When the matter was called on 9 October 2026, a settlement was being explored but could not be finalised, and the Court granted further time for the formalities.
The issue
Two applications came before the Court: I.A. 30837/2026, filed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 under Order XXIII Rule 3 for a decree in terms of their settlement, and I.A. 30836/2026, filed by the plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 for a decree against defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9, who had not appeared or filed written statements, and against defendant No. 10, the John Does.
The questions were therefore whether the settlement satisfied Order XXIII Rule 3 so that a decree could be passed against those defendants alone, and whether judgment could be pronounced against the non-appearing defendants without the plaintiff leading evidence.
The rule
Order XXIII Rule 3 authorises a decree on a compromise adjusting the suit wholly or in part, so far as it relates to the parties to the suit. A settlement with some defendants can therefore be given effect to against them alone. The essentials are a lawful compromise, reduced to writing and duly signed; the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel requires a completed agreement capable of being embodied in a decree.
Order VIII Rule 10, the Court held, is not to be applied mechanically. Following the Supreme Court in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, which approved Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, a judgment may be passed against a defendant who has not filed a written statement only if there is no fact which needs to be proved on account of deemed admission; if the plaint suggests disputed questions of fact, the plaintiff must prove the facts. The power must also be invoked with circumspection where some of several defendants contest the suit, so as to avoid inconsistent decrees.
On the substance of the claim, the Court followed Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, which recognised the right to control the commercial use of human identity as the right to publicity, with liability turning on two elements: validity, that the plaintiff owns an enforceable right in the identity or persona of a human being, and identifiability, that the celebrity must be identifiable from the defendant’s unauthorised use.
The reasoning
The four defendants acknowledge the plaintiff’s publicity rights and his right to privacy, and each had taken corrective steps: defendant No. 1 has taken steps to delete the mobile application; defendant No. 3 has discontinued its quiz book; defendant No. 5 has discontinued the posters; and defendant No. 8 deleted the domain name <amitabhbachchan.in> in November 2022 and made no monetary gains from it. Each 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. The undertakings bind their legal heirs, representatives and assigns-in-business, and the plaintiff has forgone the claims under paragraph 76(d) to (k) against them.
The application was in writing and signed by the parties, its terms were complete and capable of being embodied in a decree, and the settlement had been agreed upon without fear or coercion, with nothing shown to render it void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court was therefore satisfied that the settlement meets the essentials of Order XXIII Rule 3.
On the non-appearing defendants, the Court noted that defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 9 had not appeared despite service, that their right to file written statements stood closed since 25 September 2023, and that in a commercial suit the time for filing cannot be extended beyond the period in the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1. No defendant had filed a written statement disputing the plaintiff’s case, and defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 had themselves accepted the plaintiff’s rights and suffered a decree, so no risk of inconsistent decrees arose. Both elements from Titan Industries were 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 disclosed no disputed question of fact requiring trial, so no purpose would be served in relegating the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence.
The decree was also extended to defendant No. 10, the John Does. The interim injunction of 25 November 2022 had operated against them as well, and 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 outcome
The application under Order XXIII Rule 3 stands allowed, and the suit stands decreed against defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 in terms of paragraph 76(a) to (c) of the plaint and paragraph 7 of the settlement application. The application embodying the compromise forms part of the decree sheet.
The application under Order VIII Rule 10 stands allowed, and the suit stands decreed against defendant Nos. 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 in terms of paragraph 76(a) to (c). The ex parte ad-interim injunction of 25 November 2022 stands merged with the decree. Liberty has been granted to the plaintiff to institute fresh proceedings in the event of a fresh cause of action.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This judgment shows how a suit against many defendants can end in pieces. A compromise with some defendants is decreed only against them, because Order XXIII Rule 3 operates “so far as it relates to the parties to the suit”. Against defendants who never appear, Order VIII Rule 10 is a discretion to be exercised with circumspection, not a default: the Court still asked whether the plaint raised any disputed question of fact. And the publicity-rights analysis turns on two questions only: ownership of an enforceable right in his identity, and identifiability from the unauthorised use?
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why could the Court pass a decree on the settlement against only four of the defendants, and what did Order XXIII Rule 3 require it to be satisfied about?
- On what basis did the Court pronounce judgment against the defendants who never appeared, and why did it hold that Order VIII Rule 10 is not to be applied mechanically?
- What two elements did the Court identify, following Titan Industries, for liability for infringement of the right of publicity?
