Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted ex-parte ad-interim relief to Bisleri International Private Limited against a social media video that allegedly falsely claims that its packaged drinking water is sourced from drain and toilet water. Justice Arif S. Doctor, by an order dated 30 October 2026, directed the takedown of the impugned posts and restrained the defendants from circulating the video or similar content, and also granted a dynamic injunction covering fresh re-posts and copies.
The order was passed on Interim Application (L) No. 37662 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 37659 of 2026, in which Meta Platforms Inc. and others are the defendants. At the outset, the Court allowed a draft amendment tendered by Senior Counsel Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, seeking the addition of certain parties as defendants and amendments to the plaint and the interim application. The amendment is to be carried out in two weeks, and reverification was dispensed with. The Court also accepted that the plaintiff had made out a case to move for ex-parte relief, as set out in paragraph 24 of the plaint.
Counsel submitted that the plaintiff is a leading company in packaged drinking water, natural mineral water and carbonated soft drinks, with 105 co-packers, 14 franchises and 21 owned plants across India, and that its trade mark BISLERI is a well-known mark. The suit was filed on account of a defamatory, denigrating and disparaging video circulating about the product. The Court was told that the video, which was played in court, contains footage of a manufacturing unit having no connection with the plaintiff whatsoever.
According to the storyboard annexed to the plaint as Exhibit C, the individual in the video claims that the product is made from drain water and shows an open drain, a plant and a river as the source. The plaintiff contended that the video falsely suggests that it sells contaminated and unsafe water and is intended to undermine consumer confidence.
The plaintiff submitted that it holds a valid FSSAI Central Licence until 12 May 2028 and that its facilities are regularly audited by FSSAI-accredited agencies, relying on the certificate and specimen audit and test reports at Exhibit D. It also said that it caused an enquiry into the premises and wastewater discharge shown in the video, which found that the premises belong neither to the plaintiff nor to any of its licensees, franchisees or co-packers.
The plaintiff said that its marketing team came across the video on 27 October 2026, and that it has been published and circulated by Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 on platforms including Instagram and Facebook (Defendant No. 1), LinkedIn (Defendant No. 1A), Twitter (X) (Defendant No. 1B) and Google (Defendant No. 1C). It argued that the posts themselves acknowledged that the allegations remain unverified, and that continued circulation would cause irreparable prejudice to its goodwill.
Having viewed the clip, the Court said it is “not only prima facie disparaging and denigrating but also plainly malicious”. It observed that the video makes categorical allegations on the quality, purity and safety of the plaintiff’s water, creating an impression that the plaintiff is bottling and selling non-potable water to unsuspecting consumers.
The Court held that the plaintiff’s apprehension that the allegations may be further disseminated and amplified, causing immense and irreversible prejudice to its goodwill, is well-founded. It found that the balance of convenience lies in the plaintiff’s favour and that giving notice to the defendants before passing the order would defeat the very purpose of granting ad-interim relief.
The Court accordingly granted relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the interim application. These direct Defendant Nos. 2 to 94 to remove, disable access to or take down the impugned posts, including identified re-posts, re-shares and copies, and restrain them from publishing or circulating the video or any content alleging that the plaintiff uses contaminated water. Under the dynamic injunction, Defendant Nos. 1 to 94 must take down subsequent re-posts and substantially similar versions on the platforms, once the plaintiff furnishes their particulars, without the plaintiff having to approach the Court again.
The plaintiff is to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within three working days of the order being uploaded. The defendants have liberty to apply for variation, modification or recall on at least seven clear working days’ notice to the plaintiff’s advocates. The interim application is listed on 26 November 2026, and the order will continue till 27 November 2026.
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Shwetank Tripathi, Ms. Sonam Pradhan, Ms. Hasti Parekh, Ms. Karishma Kantawala and Ms. Medhavi Pethkar, instructed by ANM Global.
Case Title: Bisleri International Private Limited v. Meta Platforms Inc. & Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 37662 of 2026 in Suit (L) No. 37659 of 2026
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
