The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the principle that appellate courts must not preempt or interfere with interlocutory applications reserved by commercial courts for adjudication, even when alleged harm continues. This ruling underscores the necessity of respecting procedural hierarchy and avoiding parallel judicial intervention in pending matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, M/s Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited, a private education technology company headquartered in Bengaluru, entered into an Educator Agreement dated 10.12.2024 with the respondent, Dr. Rakshita Singh, an educator engaged to deliver content. Clause 10.6 of the agreement prohibited the respondent from making any disparaging, derogatory, or defamatory statements about the appellant or its representatives on any online platform, including social media and YouTube.
Key Facts
- The respondent allegedly began posting critical and defamatory content on YouTube and other platforms from January 2026 onwards.
- The appellant filed a suit before the Commercial Division of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, seeking injunctive relief under Clause 10.6 of the agreement.
- On 18.04.2026, the appellant filed I.A. No.1 seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from publishing further defamatory material.
- The Commercial Court (CCH-83) heard arguments from both parties on I.A. No.1 on 01.06.2026 and reserved the matter for orders.
- Between 02.05.2026 and 07.05.2026, the appellant alleged that the respondent continued to upload new defamatory videos and posts, causing irreparable harm to its commercial reputation and business interests.
Procedural History
- 10.12.2024: Educator Agreement executed between appellant and respondent.
- January 2026: Respondent began publishing alleged defamatory content online.
- 18.04.2026: Appellant filed suit (Com.A.A. No.194/2026) and I.A. No.1 for interim injunction.
- 01.06.2026: Commercial Court heard arguments on I.A. No.1 and reserved orders.
- 02.05.2026: Commercial Court passed an order (Annexure-A) acknowledging the filing of I.A. No.1 but not granting any interim relief.
- 05.05.2026: Appellant filed Commercial Appeal No.270/2026 under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking immediate interim protection.
- 07.05.2026: Appeal heard before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the Commercial Court’s delay in pronouncing orders on I.A. No.1, despite having heard full arguments, left it vulnerable to ongoing reputational damage. It argued that the nature of online defamation - rapid, irreversible, and widespread - demanded immediate interim protection. It relied on the principle of equitable relief in commercial disputes and urged the High Court to intervene to prevent irreparable harm.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court proceeded ex parte on the respondent’s non-appearance.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Immediate ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent from publishing any further defamatory content online.
- Direction to the Commercial Court to pronounce orders on I.A. No.1 expeditiously.
- Costs of litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, may grant interim relief on an application that has already been heard and reserved for orders by the court of first instance.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that the continued publication of defamatory content constituted irreparable harm to its commercial reputation, which could not be compensated by damages alone. It cited S. P. Gupta v. Union of India to emphasize the need for swift judicial intervention in commercial disputes involving reputational harm. It contended that judicial delay in granting interim relief, when the matter is fully heard, amounts to a denial of justice and invites appellate intervention under the doctrine of necessity.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court proceeded ex parte.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench observed that the Commercial Court had already conducted a full hearing on I.A. No.1 and reserved its orders. The Court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction is not a substitute for the trial court’s adjudicatory function. The principle of judicial hierarchy requires that courts of first instance be given the opportunity to complete their process before appellate interference.
"Once the Court of first instance has heard the interlocutory application in full and reserved the matter for orders, judicial discipline and propriety would require this Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, to refrain from entering into the merits of the very same interlocutory reliefs which are already under active consideration before the Commercial Court."
The Court noted that permitting appellate courts to grant interim relief in such circumstances would create a parallel forum, leading to conflicting orders and undermining the authority of the trial court. It further held that the appellant had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court and participated fully in its proceedings. To now seek the same relief from the High Court would amount to forum shopping and a breach of procedural propriety.
The Court acknowledged the appellant’s concern regarding ongoing harm but clarified that such apprehensions do not justify circumventing the established judicial process. The remedy lies in requesting the Commercial Court to expedite its order, not in seeking the same relief from the appellate forum.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that no interim relief could be granted by the High Court while the Commercial Court’s order on I.A. No.1 remained reserved. However, liberty was expressly reserved to the appellant to mention the matter before the Commercial Court and request early pronouncement of orders on I.A. No.1. The Commercial Court was directed to endeavor to pronounce its orders as expeditiously as possible.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appellate Courts Cannot Substitute Trial Courts on Reserved Applications
- Practitioners must not file appeals seeking interim relief on matters already reserved by commercial courts.
- Any request for urgent relief must be made before the trial court through a mention application, not through appellate intervention.
Judicial Delay Does Not Automatically Justify Appellate Interference
- Even where delay is apparent, appellate courts will not intervene unless there is a clear abuse of process or jurisdictional error.
- Parties must exhaust remedies before the court of first instance before approaching higher forums.
Urgent Commercial Harm Requires Procedural Precision
- In cases involving online defamation or reputational harm, file a mention application immediately after reservation of orders.
- Support such mentions with affidavits detailing ongoing harm, screenshots of posts, and evidence of virality or audience reach.
- Use Rule 11 of the Commercial Courts Rules to request priority listing.
