X Corp had moved an application seeking the exclusion of the two URLs from the scope of the February 5 injunction.
X argued that the posts did not concern Oberoi’s personality rights and were innocuous expressions of free speech by a user on its platform.
Oberoi failed to file a reply to the application despite being granted time by the Court.
On July 17, the Court had cautioned that it would presume that Oberoi did not oppose X Corp’s application if he failed to respond within seven days.
The Court consequently discharged the counsel and presumed that Oberoi had no objection to X Corp’s request.
X Corp had moved an application seeking the exclusion of the two URLs from the scope of the February 5 injunction. X argued that the posts did not concern Oberoi’s personality rights and were innocuous expressions of free speech by a user on its platform.
Oberoi failed to file a reply to the application despite being granted time by the Court. On July 17, the Court had cautioned that it would presume that Oberoi did not oppose X Corp’s application if he failed to respond within seven days.
Oberoi’s counsel informed the Court that he had not received any communication or instructions from the actor and sought permission to withdraw from the case. The counsel said that the July 17 order had been communicated to Oberoi through email and speed post, including through his manager, but there was no response.
The Court consequently discharged the counsel and presumed that Oberoi had no objection to X Corp’s request.
