The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application filed by Meta Platforms Inc. challenging the jurisdiction of Indian courts to hear a ₹1,000 crore commercial suit filed by digital advertising agency Blink Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd [Meta Platforms Inc. v. Blink Digital (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr.]

Justice Sandeep V Marne dismissed Meta’s interim application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that private contracts cannot override mandatory local laws.

Interestingly, Meta's Indian subsidiary, Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. (who was the main defendant in the suit) did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to hear the matter.

The Court recorded the same in its order while rejecting Meta's application.

"As of now, there is not a word in writing anywhere in the suit on behalf of defendant No. 1 (Facebook India) on the basis of which it can be inferred that defendant No.1 has any objection about maintainability of the suit in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No.2 (Meta) cannot plead on behalf of defendant No.1, who has not raised a plea that relationship between it and the Plaintiff is also governed by the Commercial Terms containing exclusive jurisdiction," the Court said.

Blink Digital filed the suit after Meta disabled four of its business manager accounts and around 9,000 associated advertising accounts in August 2026. 

Meta sought the return of the suit so it could be presented before a court in the United States. It argued that its terms of service and commercial terms mandate exclusive dispute resolution in California courts under Californian law.

The Court rejected the plea and observed that the dispute was not a simple contractual breach. 

Justice Marne reasoned that both parties had raised allegations concerning violations of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“A private contract entered into between the parties regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of courts and the applicability of a foreign law cannot override statutory provisions of laws in India. Statutory laws always override private contracts in India and the parties cannot contract out of non-derogable statutes, public policy, or mandatory local laws,” Justice Marne held.

The Court further noted that because Meta's standard terms exclude conflict-of-law provisions, a California court would be legally unable to adjudicate alleged breaches of Indian IT regulations.

“The Californian Courts can only decide the dispute by applying the contractual stipulations and Californian laws by ignoring the conflict of law provisions. Thus, the Californian Courts cannot decide any dispute between the parties in relation to the allegation of violation of the provisions of Intermediary Rules,” the Court said.    

The bench underlined that a tech giant cannot avoid statutory oversight.

“The provisions of the IT Act and the Intermediary Rules are intended to prevent a situation in which a significant social media intermediary profits from its operations in India while seeking to evade its obligations under the Indian laws,” the judge said.    

The Court also highlighted that co-defendant Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. had not challenged jurisdiction and the causes of action were inextricably linked.

In this regard, the Court also noted that Facebook India's office is in India and hence it is bound by the IT Act and Intermediary Rules.

"This Court is unable to record a finding that it lacks territorial jurisdiction even qua defendant No. 1 (Facebook India). Secondly, defendant No.1 has its office in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, by way of a contract, parties cannot exclude inherent jurisdiction of this Court by agreeing that Courts in California alone would have territorial jurisdiction to decide disputes between plaintiff and defendant No.1," the Court said.

Thus, it concluded that the plaint cannot be returned piecemeal.

Hence, it proceeded to dismiss Meta's application.

Senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas with advocates Ameya Gokhale, Ritish Desai, Amee Rana, Radhika Roy, Harit Lakhani, Tanvi Raina and Abhishek Mookherjee briefed by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas appeared for Meta Platforms. 

Advocate Rishabh Jaisani briefed by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas appeared for Facebook Indian Online Services. 

Advocates Kunal Dwarkadas, Siddharth Joshi, Aniket Kharote, Naval Sharma, Nabeel Malik, Nikita Sharma, Sarthak Sharma and Akhila DV briefed by Tuli & Co. appeared for Blinkit Digital. 

[Read order]