PAY 10 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AD ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1592/2026 and CM APPL. 7763/2026 Date of Decision: 26.02.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: PAY 10 SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv with Mr. Nakul Batra, Ms. Palak Sehgal, Ms. Aankhi Anwesha, Mr. Akshar Bhatt, Mr. Sukrit Seth, and Mr. Sreedhar Kale, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AD ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Atul Tanwar, Advocate for R- 1/UOI. Ms. Anushka Verma and Mr. Rajat Katyal, Advocate for R-3/Yes Bank. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Ms. Shefali Munde, Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Thilagavathi P, Advocates for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:26.02.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 16:55:48 W.P.(C) 1592/2026 Page 1 of 10 KUMAR KAURAV 1. The Court is called upon to decide whether the instant writ petition, challenging action purportedly taken under Sections 94 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘the BNSS’), and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter the ‘IT Act’), would be amenable to be challenged in a Writ Petition (Civil) or a Writ Petition (Criminal). 2. Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Tamil Nadu Police, while placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of N. Prakash vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors.1, argues that the writ petition should have been registered as ‘W.P. (Criminal)’ since the genesis of the entire dispute lies in a criminal investigation. 3. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel who appears for the petit