Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.1125/2024

Case between Leena Sham vs M/s Google L L C et al regarding a permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-03-06
Duration
approximately-3 years 2 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Leena Sham has filed a suit against YouTube and her daughter, Sharikka Sham, seeking a permanent injunction to remove a video uploaded by her deceased son. The video is claimed to violate her privacy and has caused distress to the family after the son's death.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The petition for a temporary injunction to prevent YouTube from publicly displaying a video was allowed, considering the potential harm to the petitioner's family. YouTube is restrained from further dissemination of the video.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Temporary injunction against YouTube for public streaming and dissemination of the video.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioner likely to suffer irreparable harm if the video remained available.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Petition is allowed. 1st respondent is restrained by a temporary injunction from public streaming, public displaying, sharing or otherwise public disseminating of the injunction scheduled video in its internet and other platforms.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Leena Sham (69 years) 1/376, Smriti, Tower Road, Fort Kochi, Kerala- 682001

Defendants

M/s Google L L C (Age not specified years) 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States of America Sharikka Sham (41 years) 1/376, Smriti, Tower Road, Fort Kochi, Kerala- 682001, currently residing at Flat No. 17, Jamuna, C/o Dr. Gincy Mathew, Sangam Complex, St. Martin Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam- 682025

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner sought a temporary injunction preventing YouTube from publicly displaying or sharing the video.
Evidence:
Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is expedient to restrain the public streaming of the video by the 1st respondent.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the death of Shalith Sham, the uploader of the contentious video.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Printout of plaint schedule video
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document includes the transcription of the video which is being contested.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lawyer’s Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to YouTube requesting the removal of the video.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Print of reply
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
YouTube's response to the lawyer's notice regarding the video removal.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Medical Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate provides evidence regarding the health condition of the deceased.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Expenditure Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the costs incurred for the deceased's treatment.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: FIR
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to a police complaint relevant to the family issues arising from the video.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Terms and Conditions of YouTube
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines YouTube's policies regarding content ownership and user rights.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Power of Attorney Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document indicates the authority granted by the answering defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Terms of Service of YouTube
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides context regarding the operation of YouTube as a platform.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Privacy Policy of YouTube
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document explains YouTube's privacy practices related to user data.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Community Guidelines of YouTube
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document outlines community standards and regulations for content on YouTube.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Help Centre webpage
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides information on how users can report content on YouTube.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Accounts Help Centre webpage
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document assists users with their Google Accounts related issues.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Help Centre webpage for removing content
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document details the criteria for removing content on YouTube.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Policy guidance on deceased user’s account
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document outlines the procedures for managing accounts of deceased users on YouTube.
Reference:
Ext.B8

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Mon, 01/01/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases