The Delhi High Court has declined to stop the publication and sale of 47 law books in a copyright dispute involving members of the Sagar family and Delhi Law House. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the plaintiff had not, at the interim stage, established a sufficient basis to show that she owned the copyrights claimed in the books.
The Court was considering an application filed by Shakti Sagar, widow of late Subhash Sagar, seeking an interim injunction against The Delhi Law House and three members of the family.
Background
Shakti Sagar claimed copyright over 47 titles and traced her alleged ownership through her father-in-law, late R.G. Sagar, and her husband. According to her case, R.G. Sagar had acquired rights through a 1962 certificate issued by Law Book Company, Allahabad. She then relied upon a Will executed in 1995 by R.G. Sagar and another Will executed by her husband in 2021.
She alleged that the defendants were publishing and selling the books through a separate entity, The Delhi Law House, without her permission. The disputed titles included commentaries by Sanjiva Row and Anand & Iyer, among others.
The defendants disputed her ownership and argued that no written assignment from the original authors transferring copyright to Law Book Company or R.G. Sagar had been produced.
Justice Kaurav noted that under the Copyright Act, the author is ordinarily the first owner of copyright. A person claiming ownership through an author must establish a legally recognised transfer, including a written assignment where required.
The Court found that the plaintiff's case did not disclose how Law Book Company had originally acquired copyright from the authors before the alleged transfer to R.G. Sagar. The two Wills, according to the Court, could not by themselves establish a title that had not first been shown to belong to the testators.
"The root of the plaintiff's title is, therefore, not disclosed at this stage," the Court observed.
The Court also declined to decide the genuineness of the disputed Wills or other documents at the interim stage. It said:
"Whether these documents are genuine is a matter for trial on evidence, and this Court refrains from returning any finding thereon."
The Court further held that the plaintiff had not established the three requirements for interim injunction: a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The alleged loss from book sales was capable of being calculated and compensated through damages if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dismissed the interim injunction application. The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the interim application and would not determine the merits of the copyright dispute.
Questions concerning authorship, assignment, the Wills, the 1962 certificate and other disputed documents were left open for trial.
