The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain the publication and sale of 47 legal books, including commentaries by Sanjiva Row and Anand & Iyer, in a family copyright dispute involving publishing house Delhi Law House. [Shakti Sagar Vs Delhi Law House]
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a person claiming copyright through successive wills must first establish that the original owner had lawfully acquired the rights from the authors.
The Court was hearing an application filed by Shakti Sagar, widow of late publisher Subhash Sagar, seeking an interim injunction against The Delhi Law House and three members of the Sagar family.
The disputed publications included 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 commentaries on guardianship and benami property transactions.
Some of these publications date back more than a century. Sanjiva Row's Commentary was first published in 1910, while the third edition of Anand & Iyer's Commentary appeared in 1949.
According to the Shakti Sagar, the copyrights originally belonged to her father-in-law RG Sagar, who acquired them following his retirement from Law Book Company, Allahabad, in 1961.
She relied on a certificate issued in 1962 and two successive wills executed by her father-in-law and husband to establish ownership.
She alleged that the defendants had established a separate partnership under the name The Delhi Law House in 2021 and were publishing and selling the books without her permission.
The defendants disputed her ownership, arguing that no written assignments transferring copyright from the original authors had been produced.
The Court noted that the Copyright Act recognises authors as the first owners of their works and requires copyright assignments to be executed in writing.
It found that although RG Sagar was a publisher, there was no evidence establishing how Law Book Company had acquired copyright from the authors before purportedly transferring it to him.
"The root of the plaintiff's title is, therefore, not disclosed at this stage," the Court said.
The Court also observed that the dispute was substantially connected with the affairs of the family publishing partnership and the alleged diversion of revenues.
It held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie right to the copyrights. The alleged financial losses could also be compensated through damages if she ultimately succeeded.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, clarifying that copyright ownership and the validity of the disputed Wills would be determined at trial.
Advocate Gaurav Bahl represented Shakti Sagar.
Advocates Sanjay Vashishtha, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Siddhartha and Aditya represented defendants.
[Read Judgment]