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
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Temporary injunction against YouTube for public streaming and dissemination of the video.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
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.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the petitioner likely to suffer irreparable harm if the video remained available.
The court found the petitioner likely to suffer irreparable harm if the video remained available.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The balance of convenience favors the petitioner, as she is the co-licensor of the petition-scheduled video. If an order is not passed, it will cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and her family.
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
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Leena Sham
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Google L L C
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sharikka Sham
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Death Certificate of Shalith Sham, Printout of plaint schedule video, Lawyer’s notice dated 09.10.2024.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Terms of Service of YouTube, Copy of Privacy Policy of YouTube.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P Thomas Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Amrutha K P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Riji Rajendran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ayana Unnikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R S Diwagar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mithra Sudhindran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Tony Thomas Inchiparambil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ruben Joe Toniyo
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
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
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Violation of privacy
Case Code
Case between Leena Sham vs M/s Google L L C et al regarding a permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Leena Sham vs M/s Google L L C et al regarding a permanent prohibitory injunction.