Dismissing a complaint against Microsoft India for allegedly displaying objectionable content on its website, a Delhi court on Thursday pulled up the petitioner for not acting responsibly and slapped a Rs 5,000 fine on him.
Hearing a petition by Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi, an Islamic researcher linked to a website run by the Islamic Peace Foundation of India, who sought the removal of "objectionable content" from around 20 websites, Administrative Civil Judge Parveen Singh said the complainant failed to disclose any specific cause of action against the company.
"I have gone through all the documents filed with the plaint. None of the documents has been downloaded from or stated to have been available on the websites of the defendant No 7 (Microsoft India)," said the judge.
The court also pulled up Qasmi for not answering the query whether Microsoft India Pvt Ltd is the owner of any websites against whom he has grievances.
"I am unable to understand how could Microsoft India Pvt Ltd be included in a bracket, which lists social networking websites," said the judge.
Noting that Microsoft India was not a company providing a platform to people to interact with each other and post or publish their views, but one engaged in developments and sale of software and computing solutions, the judge slammed Qasmi for not acting responsibly in making it as a party in the case.
Microsoft told the court during the hearing that there was no defamatory material posted on its websites.
During the proceedings, the court heard the arguments of Microsoft and Yahoo India, which also has been named by Qasmi among the 20 websites and social networking sites.
The court will on March 5 give its decision on Yahoo India's plea that the complaint against it should be rejected. The company has termed the suit "motivated".
The other companies named by Qasmi in his complaint will continue to face trial. A few companies, including Facebook and Google India, have already filed their statements in court.
Facebook Feb 28 told the court that the case was filed against it with "ulterior motives". It requested the court to remove its name from the case.