High Court
Delhi HC rules in favour of Sun TV chief Maran
MUMBAI: In a civil suit filed by south Indian media baron and Sun Group chief Kalanithi Maran and his airline firm Kal Airways, the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of SpiceJet against a single-judge order that directed it to deposit Rs 579 crore in relation to a share transfer conflict. Sources told Financial Express that SpiceJet will move the Supreme Court against the HC order.
The petitioner had sought issuance of stock warrants in SpiceJet to them as per a sale purchase agreement (SPA) of 2015 which had led to the transfer of ownership of the budget carrier to SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh. The single bench’s order had been pronounced last year on the ivil suit filed by Maran and Kal Airways, the erstwhile owner of SpiceJet, PTI reported.
The high court on Monday asked SpiceJet to deposit in court a part of the amount in the form of bank guarantee by July-end, and the remainder to be paid in cash by August end.
Maran and Kal had charged that despite giving Rs 579 crore to SpiceJet, the carrier had failed to issue them the warrants or allot tranche one and two of Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares and that the funds were not utilised for paying statutory dues owing to which they were also facing prosecution.
Singh had co-founded SpiceJet in 2005, but sold his majority stake to Maran for Rs 750 crore in 2010. But, when the carrier ran into trouble, Singh came on board by acquiring 58 per cent stake from Marans in January 2015.
A division bench headed by justice S Ravindra Bhat stated: “Although we do not find merit in the appeal and have dismissed it, we have passed an order modifying the impugned order,” adding “there is nothing worthwhile” in the airline’s plea to show its finances were precarious or that its cash position was so stretched that it cannot comply with a single-judge order to deposit the amount. “There is neither reference to any figure or amount, nor reliance on any balance sheet, nor even the income and expenditure statement of the company, to say that compliance with the impugned order would irreparably injure it.”
“The court notices that the nearly 18 month pendency of this appeal, and the non-compliance with the impugned order (of single judge), has aggrandised the appellant (SpiceJet), which was to have the benefit of the amounts. “If there were any difficulties, this interregnum period would have helped it considerably tide over its affairs and certainly afforded time to organise it better and in a more orderly fashion to comply with the order,” the bench said while dismissing the appeals.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
