Karnataka High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Unacademy Parent In Dispute With Former Educator

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to grant interim protection to Unacademy parent Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited against a former educator accused of making disparaging online statements.

The Court held that it could not examine the same injunction request after the Commercial Court had already heard the matter and reserved orders.

A division bench of Justices Sachin Shankar Magadum and Rajesh Rai K was hearing an appeal filed by the company against an order of the Commercial Court reserving orders on its application for interim relief.

"we are of the considered view that 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. If such parallel consideration is permitted, it would virtually amount to inviting the Appellate Court to adjudicate upon issues that stand reserved for determination before the Court of first instance, resulting in overlapping consideration and possible inconsistency in judicial orders", the court noted. 

Sorting Hat Technologies had sought an injunction restraining its former educator, Dr. Rakshita Singh, from making allegedly defamatory, derogatory and disparaging statements against it on online platforms. The company argued that although arguments on its interim application had concluded, the Commercial Court reserved orders without granting ad-interim protection.

The company also alleged that Singh continued to publish disparaging content on various platforms, causing ongoing harm to its commercial reputation and business interests. It therefore sought interim protection from the High Court pending the Commercial Court's decision on its application.

The court, however, rejected the plea.

The court observed that permitting parallel consideration of the same interim relief would effectively invite the appellate court to decide issues that had already been reserved for determination before the Commercial Court. Such an approach could lead to overlapping consideration and inconsistent judicial orders.

It further held that the company, having sought interim relief before the Commercial Court and participated in proceedings culminating in the reservation of orders, could not simultaneously pursue substantially identical relief before the High Court while the Commercial Court's decision remained pending.

“Entertaining such a request at this stage would amount to pre-empting the adjudicatory process already concluded before the Commercial Court and would be contrary to settled principles governing appellate interference in interlocutory matters.”, the court ruled.

At the same time, the Bench took note of the company's apprehension regarding continuing prejudice. It granted liberty to mention the matter before the Commercial Court and seek an early pronouncement of orders.

"In the event such a request is made, it is expected that the Commercial Court shall endeavour to pronounce orders as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.”, the court noted. 

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

For Appellant: Advocate Kashyap N Naik