

Indian court orders seizing a startup's machines based solely on allegations - india
http://news.oneindia.in/2010/01/30/data-theft-hc-asks-askme-in-to-shut-down.html

======
india
The Delhi High Court has granted an exparte injunction against askme.in
ordering them to stop business and ordering the seizing of their machines and
storage after justdial filed a case against them. From what I understand from
googling[1], an ex parte injunction is a court order granted after hearing
only one party in matters of great urgency, without notice to the defendant or
other parties.

This doesn't bode well for the start up climate in India. Soesn't this mean
that any established company could sue me and my machines would be seized
pending the results of the case.

[1] <http://www.google.com/search?q=ex+parte+injunction>

~~~
hga
Yes, ex parte anything means the judge(s) only listened to one side of a
dispute, and as one of the Just Dial people noted, they're rare. For this sort
of case, unheard of in the US.

It does sound very bad, especially given that Indian courts aren't noted for
speed.

~~~
shantanu_k06
Could this be due to bribery, or political connection?

~~~
DannoHung
In India? Doesn't seem unreasonable.

I've heard Indian coworkers practically brag about how corrupt their officials
are.

~~~
FraaJad
You may want to be weary of those co-workers of yours. People who think they
can get away with anything because they have "connections" are corrupt
themselves.

/an Indian.

~~~
DannoHung
"practically brag" is a bit of a colloquialism. It doesn't mean that they were
proud of it, just emphatically suggesting that something is true.

------
hardik
Infomedia 18 can hardly be called a startup; its parent company is joint-
partner in the TV channel "CNBC TV18" plus they own a host of other
businesses.

~~~
shrikant
Yep. Network18 is practically the Google of businesses in India :)

------
Tichy
I think this can happen everywhere?

I wonder how to protect against it. Maybe having backup servers in several
countries is the only way?

~~~
hga
I've never heard of something like this happening in the US, the Fifth
Amendment has a well enforced provision blocking this, "No person shall ... be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Ex parte
orders "will necessarily be temporary and interim in nature"
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte>).

In this sort of case, the plaintiffs would have to show some sort of massive
_irreparable_ harm that must be remedied so quickly that the other side cannot
be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. I can't see how this sort
of case would (in the US) rise to that level.

The only possible exception would be massive bad faith from the other side's
lawyer(s) ... one real instance of this that I've heard of was where the
lawyer on one side was caught burglarizing the business office of the other
side. Maybe Infomedia 18's legal team was showing bad faith of some sort, but
it doesn't sound like it based on the cited article.

~~~
Tichy
What about piracy allegations, or child porn? Wouldn't police have to grab
servers quickly before their owner has a chance to erase things? I think it
can happen in Germany. Not sure how solid the accusations have to be.

~~~
hga
Child porn is criminal and has nothing to do with civil law.

Piracy in the way you're talking about it is also criminal law, i.e. you are
getting the authorities to preemptively intervene for you. If you just need
proof, their copying disks is sufficient, you wouldn't need to seize
everything. This is in fact an alleged piracy case.

Civil law would come into play where you're trying to get an injunction to
stop someone from continuing to commit piracy, e.g. _Apple v. Psystar_ , where
that sort of thing was handled in discovery.

~~~
Tichy
What do you mean by copying disks? I think the police would like to check all
servers for traces of illegal material. I find it shocking that it's possible,
but then, we are always at the mercy of our governments.

~~~
hga
What I mean is make disk image copies. That would be impractical for a big
enough outfit, but I didn't gather something like this was needed, "Just Dial
alleged that Infomedia 18 had copied its extensive database and was displaying
the same on its website askme.in".

That's relatively easy to prove or disprove, they're alleged to be basing
their business (or a part of it) on the stolen database. And the harm to Just
Dial can be ended without shutting down all of Infomedia 18.

"[W]e are always at the mercy of our governments", but some governments are
less arbitrary than others, and this does seem to correlate with healthy
business climates.

------
cabalamat
Maybe India doesn't want to have a startup culture?

------
BearOfNH
Obviously we don't know all the facts but if it turns out that _Just Dial_ is
wrong and _Infomedia 18_ is innocent, the court will have egg (?curry?) on its
face. In which case there should be some harsh downside for _Just Dial_ like,
say, reimbursing _Infomedia 18_ for lost revenue, plus damages.

As a general rule I don't like _ex parte_ hearings for all the obvious
reasons. There needs to be a means to limit their use, and a heavy fine for
being wrong is about all that comes to mind.

~~~
cabalamat
> _In which case there should be some harsh downside for Just Dial like, say,
> reimbursing Infomedia 18 for lost revenue, plus damages._

That seems entirely reasonable to me; I might even go further and suggest the
original plaintiff pay punitive damages. Furthermore, there should be no
limitation of liability for Just Dial, apart from the limit of the actual
damage they caused.

