Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the claimant had not, at the interim stage, shown a clear chain of copyright ownership stretching back to the original authors of the works.
The dispute concerns several established legal commentaries, including Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on the Contract Act, Anand & Iyer’s Commentary on the Specific Relief Act, Gaur’s Fire Arms and Forensic Ballistics, and works dealing with guardianship and benami property transactions.
Some of the books have been in circulation for generations. Sanjiva Row’s commentary, for instance, was first published in 1910, while the third edition of the Anand & Iyer commentary dates to 1949.
The injunction plea was moved by Shakti Sagar, widow of late publisher Subhash Sagar. She claimed that the copyrights had ultimately devolved upon her after being held by her father-in-law, RG Sagar.
Her case was that RG Sagar obtained the rights after retiring from the Law Book Company, Allahabad, in 1961. She relied on a certificate issued in 1962, followed by wills executed by RG Sagar and subsequently by her husband, to trace the alleged transfer of the rights.
She alleged that members of the family later created a separate partnership, The Delhi Law House, in 2021 and began publishing and selling the disputed books without her consent.
The defendants challenged the very foundation of the claim. Their principal contention was that there was no written assignment showing that the original authors had transferred their copyrights to the entities or persons from whom RG Sagar was said to have acquired them.
The High Court noted that under copyright law, authors are ordinarily the first owners of copyright and that an assignment of copyright has to be made in writing.
The Court found that simply establishing RG Sagar’s association with the publishing business did not answer the crucial question of how the copyrights had initially passed from the authors to Law Book Company.
Without that missing link, the Court held that the claimant’s asserted chain of title remained unestablished at this stage.
The Court also noted that the dispute extended beyond the books themselves and involved allegations concerning the family publishing business and the diversion of revenues.
Since the claimant had not demonstrated a prima facie copyright entitlement, the Court found no basis for granting an immediate injunction. It further observed that any financial loss suffered could potentially be addressed through damages if the claimant eventually succeeds.
The interim application was therefore dismissed.
The Court made it clear, however, that the underlying questions concerning copyright ownership and the validity and effect of the successive wills remain open for determination during the trial.