Bisleri International Private Limited Vs Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay HC Grants Bisleri Dynamic Injunction Against Viral Video Alleging Use of Contaminated Water
Introduction
The Bombay High Court granted ex parte ad-interim relief to Bisleri International Private Limited against circulation of a video alleging that its packaged drinking water was sourced from contaminated water.
After viewing the video, the Court found it prima facie disparaging, denigrating and malicious. It directed removal of the impugned content and restrained repetition of the allegations.
The Court also granted a dynamic injunction, covering subsequent reposts and similar versions containing the same allegations, upon Bisleri furnishing their particulars. The order is temporary and expressly continues until 27 November 2026.
Background of the Dispute
Bisleri approached the Court after its marketing team discovered the impugned video on 27 October 2026.
According to the company, the video circulated across social media platforms and made false allegations concerning the quality, purity and safety of its packaged drinking water.
The proceedings named Meta Platforms Inc. and other defendants. The plaintiff’s submissions referred to circulation on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, X and Google-operated platforms.
At the hearing, the Court permitted amendments adding parties and modifying the plaint and interim application. The amendments were directed to be completed within two weeks, with reverification dispensed with.
Allegations in the Viral Video
The video depicted drains, pipelines and a manufacturing facility while linking those visuals to Bisleri’s products. It suggested that contaminated wastewater was filtered and bottled for consumption.
Bisleri submitted that the premises shown had no connection with the company or its licensees, franchisees or co-packers.
Its counsel played the video before the Court and relied on a storyboard, screenshots, social media handles and URLs annexed to the plaint.
The company argued that the presentation falsely associated unrelated premises with its operations and created an alarming impression that its products were unsafe. These were the allegations and submissions considered at the interim stage.
Bisleri’s Supporting Material
The company submitted that it operated through 105 co-packers, 14 franchises and 21 owned plants across India.
It relied on an FSSAI Central Licence stated to be valid until 12 May 2028, together with specimen audit and test reports. Counsel submitted that its manufacturing facilities were regularly audited by FSSAI-accredited agencies.
Bisleri also stated that an enquiry into the premises and wastewater discharge depicted in the video established that they were unrelated to its manufacturing network.
The company contended that continued circulation threatened its goodwill, reputation and consumer confidence, making immediate protective relief necessary.
Court’s Findings on Urgency
After viewing the clip, the Court observed that it made categorical allegations about the quality, purity and safety of Bisleri’s water.
The presentation conveyed that the company was bottling non-potable water and selling it to unsuspecting consumers. The Court regarded the video as prima facie malicious and disparaging.
It also accepted that widespread circulation created a real risk of further dissemination and amplification, potentially causing immense and irreversible prejudice.
The balance of convenience favoured Bisleri. Given the nature of the allegations and speed of circulation, the Court concluded that advance notice to the defendants would defeat the purpose of granting urgent relief.
Removal and Restraint Directions
The Court granted relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the interim application.
Defendant Nos. 2 to 94, and persons acting through or on their behalf, were directed to remove, disable access to or take down posts containing the impugned video, including identified reposts, reshares and copies.
They were also restrained from publishing or circulating the video or repeating false and defamatory allegations that Bisleri manufactured or bottled drinking water using contaminated water, wastewater or water unfit for human consumption.
The restraint addresses the impugned allegations and their repetition across social media, websites and other media.
Scope of the Dynamic Injunction
The dynamic injunction extends to subsequent reposts, reshares, copies and substantially identical or similar versions containing the same defamatory allegations.
It covers content circulated through existing or newly created accounts, links and URLs.
Upon Bisleri furnishing particulars of additional posts or URLs to the defendants covered by the direction, removal or disabling access can be sought without approaching the Court afresh.
This mechanism addresses recurrence of the disputed content through new uploads. It remains tied to the same allegations concerning Bisleri and its products.
Duration and Further Proceedings
Bisleri was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, within three working days of uploading the order.
The defendants may seek variation, modification or recall after giving the plaintiff’s advocates at least seven clear working days’ notice.
The application was listed for 26 November 2026, with protection continuing until 27 November 2026. The findings remain prima facie, and the suit has not been finally decided.
FULL TEXT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER
1. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, has tendered a draft amendment seeking (i) addition of certain parties as Defendants/Respondents, and (ii) several amendments to the Plaint as well as the Interim Application. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification and allowed in terms of the draft tendered. Reverification is dispensed with. Amendment to be carried out in 2 weeks.
2. Mr. Tulzapurlar then pointed out that the Plaintiff is moving ex-parte for the reasons more particularly set out in paragraph 24 of the Plaint. Having heard Mr. Tulzapurkar and having perused the averments made in paragraph 24 of the Plaint, I find that the Plaintiff has made out a case to move for ex-parte ad-interim relief.
3. He has, at the outset, submitted that the Plaintiff is one of the leading companies in bottling, processing, packaging, marketing and manufacturing of packaged drinking water, natural mineral water and carbonated soft drinks. The Plaintiff has 105 co-packers, 14 franchises and 21 owned plants all across India. He submitted that the Plaintiff, by itself, has over the last four decades, been true to its promise in providing packaged drinking water to consumers spanning across India and undertakes thorough lab tests and stringent checks in compliance with the applicable standards and guidelines laid down by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from time to time. He submitted that the Plaintiff strives to make a conscious effort to keep the environment safe and has started several initiatives, such as plastic recycling and rainwater harvesting and that the Plaintiff organises several awareness programmes to involve as many people as possible in proactively making the planet a healthier place to live. He submitted that the Plaintiff owns and operates a website under the domain name www.bisleri.com wherein it provides information about its policies and brands to the general public. He submits that the trade mark ‘BISLERI’ is a well-known mark duly published in the records of Trade Marks Registry.
4. Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit on account of a defamatory, denigrating and disparaging video that has been circulating about the Plaintiff’s product, BISLERI, i.e., a well-known packaged drinking water. He then, for the benefit of the Court, played the video clip/reel. Mr. Tulzapurkar has submitted that nothing in the clip has even the remotest connection with the Plaintiff. He then pointed out that the impugned video which contains footage of a manufacturing unit that has no connection with the Plaintiff whatsoever. He further submitted that the impugned video contains entirely false, frivolous, misleading and defamatory statements and allegations concerning the quality, purity and safety of the Plaintiff’s packaged drinking water, which collectively result in the defamation and denigration of the Plaintiff and its products, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.
5. He also invited my attention to the detailed storyboard of the impugned video, which is set out in the Plaint and annexed as Exhibit “C”. He submitted that the impugned video contains several statements and visual representations concerning the Plaintiff’s packaged drinking water, which falsely suggests that the Plaintiff is manufacturing and selling contaminated and unsafe drinking water to unsuspecting consumers. He submitted that the said allegations are presented in a sensational and alarming manner, thereby creating an impression in the minds of viewers that the Plaintiff’s products are unfit for human consumption and pose a risk to public health. He submitted that the contents of the impugned video are intended to malign the Plaintiff and undermine the confidence reposed by consumers in its products. The relevant portions of the storyboard of the impugned video in Exhibit C, are extracted hereunder:
STORYBOARD OF THE IMPUGNED VIDEO
—
6. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that the allegations made in the impugned video are entirely false and baseless. He submitted that the Plaintiff holds a valid FSSAI Central Licence until 12th May 2028, and its manufacturing facilities are regularly audited by FSSAI-accredited agencies. He then invited my attention to the copy of the FSSAI certificate and the specimen audit/test reports, which are annexed at Exhibit “D” to the Plaint. He further submitted that the Plaintiff caused an enquiry to be conducted in respect of the premises and wastewater discharge depicted in the impugned video. Upon examination, it was found that the premises shown therein neither belong to the Plaintiff nor to any of its licensees, franchisees or co-packers. He further submitted that despite the posts themselves acknowledging that the allegations remain unverified, Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 have published and circulated the impugned video.
7. He submitted that the continued accessibility and widespread circulation of the impugned video on various social media platforms pose a serious risk of further dissemination, thereby causing irreparable prejudice to the Plaintiff. He submitted that unless urgent ex-parte ad-interim reliefs are granted, the Defendants may further circulate and amplify the impugned video, thereby defeating the very purpose of the present proceedings.
8. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that Defendant Nos. 2 to 94, through the publication, uploading, posting, circulation and communication to the public on various social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook operated by Defendant No. 1, LinkedIn operated by Defendant No. 1A, Twitter (X) operated by Defendant No. 1B and Google operated by Defendant No. 1C, have been causing immense damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.
9. He submitted that on 27th October 2026, the Plaintiff’s marketing team came across the impugned video, which contained false, baseless, misleading and defamatory statements and allegations concerning the quality, purity and safety of the BISLERI packaged drinking water manufactured, bottled and sold by the Plaintiff. He submitted that the said impugned video has been published, uploaded and circulated by Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 on various social media platforms, including on platforms of Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 1C, and has been widely disseminated amongst members of the public. He then invited my attention to the storyboard of the impugned video, along with the screenshots, social media handles and URLs of Defendant Nos. 2 to 94, annexed at Exhibit “C” to the Plaint.
10. Having seen the video clip, I can only say that it is not only prima facie disparaging and denigrating but also plainly malicious. The impugned video contains categorical allegations concerning the quality, purity and safety of the Plaintiff’s packaged drinking water, suggesting that the same is contaminated and unsafe for human consumption. The manner in which the allegations are presented creates an impression that the Plaintiff is, infact, not selling safe packaged drinking water but is bottling and selling non-potable water to unsuspecting consumers.
11. Also, the widespread publication and circulation of the impugned video across various social media platforms justifies the serious apprehension of the Plaintiff that the defamatory allegations may be further disseminated and amplified. Hence, the apprehension that the continued circulation of the impugned video may cause immense and irreversible prejudice to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and its products is well-founded. Hence, I find that the Plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of ex-parte ad-interim reliefs. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff. As already noted above, having regard to the nature of the defamatory allegations and the rapid dissemination of the impugned video across various social media platforms, I am satisfied that giving notice to the Defendants before passing this order would defeat the very purpose of granting ad-interim reliefs.
12. The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to ex-parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Interim Application against the Defendants, which read thus viz.
“(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, a temporary order and injunction be passed by this Hon’ble Court directing the Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 and all persons claiming through and / or under them or acting on their behalf to forthwith remove, disable access to and/or take down the impugned posts containing the Impugned Video published and/or circulated by Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 on the said Platforms or any other platform, including all identified re-posts, re-shares and copies thereof containing the same defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff;
(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, a temporary order and injunction be passed by this Hon’ble Court restraining the Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 and all persons claiming through and / or under them or acting on their behalf, from publishing, uploading, circulating, sharing, re-sharing, re-posting, communicating to the public and/or disseminating the Impugned Video and/or any other false, defamatory or derogatory statements or content alleging that the Plaintiff manufactures, processes and/or bottles its packaged drinking water using contaminated water, wastewater and/or water unfit for human consumption, or otherwise repeating the defamatory allegations contained in the Impugned Video, on any social media platform, website, electronic medium or otherwise, in any manner whatsoever;
(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a temporary order and injunction in the nature of a dynamic injunction, directing Defendant Nos. 1- 94 to forthwith remove, delete, take down and/or disable access to the impugned posts containing the Impugned Video and any subsequent re-posts, re-shares, copies and/or substantially identical and/or similar versions of the Impugned Video containing the same defamatory allegations concerning the Plaintiff and its products, which may be published, uploaded and/or circulated on the said Platforms or any other platform through any existing or newly created accounts, links and/or URLs, upon the Plaintiff furnishing the particulars of such additional posts and/or URLs to Defendant Nos. 1-94, without requiring the Plaintiff to approach this Hon’ble Court;”
13. The Plaintiff will comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, within 3 working days of the present order being uploaded.
14. Liberty to the Defendants to apply for a variation, modification or recall of this order after at least 7 clear working days’ notice to the Advocates of the Plaintiff.
15. List the above Interim Application on 26th November, 2026, for further consideration.
16. The Order will continue till 27th November, 2026.
