The Bombay High Court has refused to return a commercial suit filed by Blink Digital (India) Private Limited against Meta Platforms Inc., holding that Meta failed to establish that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed Meta’s application seeking to have the matter taken out of the Indian court on the basis of contractual clauses selecting California courts for dispute resolution.
The dispute arose after Meta disabled four of Blink Digital’s Business Manager accounts on August 4, 2026, affecting approximately 9,000 advertising accounts and associated business assets. The ruling concerns jurisdiction, not the legality of the account suspension.
Background
Blink Digital provides digital advertising, media planning and marketing services to clients in India and abroad. It approached the High Court seeking restoration of its Business Manager accounts, advertising accounts, Facebook pages and Instagram accounts.
The company also sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs, along with ₹1,000 crore in damages, alleging that the disabling of its accounts violated applicable law and Meta’s own terms and policies.
Meta argued that its Terms of Service and Commercial Terms required commercial disputes to be resolved exclusively before the US District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County. It therefore sought the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Blink Digital opposed the application, arguing that the dispute also involved Indian statutory obligations and that the suit could not be divided to exclude Meta from proceedings before the Bombay High Court.
Justice Marne examined the contractual arrangements between the parties, including the country-specific advertising terms applicable to Indian advertisers. The Court noted that these terms identified Facebook India as the contracting entity for certain advertising services.
The judge also considered the allegations concerning the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These issues formed an important part of the dispute over whether the Indian court could hear the case despite the foreign jurisdiction clauses.
The Court observed that Meta had “failed to demonstrate that this Court totally lacks territorial jurisdiction” and held that the statutory issues raised could not simply be excluded from consideration by relying on the contractual arrangement.
It further observed that “Courts in California cannot decide the said issues”, referring to the allegations concerning Indian information technology law and the Intermediary Rules.
The High Court concluded that the suit was maintainable before it against Facebook India and that the claims could not be divided by returning only part of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
The Court clarified that its findings on territorial jurisdiction were confined to the application seeking return of the plaint. The jurisdiction issue could be examined independently during the trial.
Accordingly, the Court ordered: “Interim Application is accordingly dismissed.” The costs of the application were directed to be costs in the suit.
The separate application seeking temporary injunction was listed for November 2, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.
