The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for ex-parte ad interim injunction in a copyright suit where the plaintiff claimed title to 47 literary works through disputed testamentary documents, holding that she failed to establish a prima facie right as required under the triple test for interlocutory relief.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Mrs. Shakti Sagar, widow of late Sh. Subhash Sagar and daughter-in-law of late Sh. R.G. Sagar, claimed exclusive copyright over 47 literary works enumerated in Schedule-A of the plaint. She alleged that defendants nos. 1 to 4 were infringing her copyright by publishing and selling these titles without licence through a deceptively similar entity "The Delhi Law House" (TDLH), while the legitimate publisher "Delhi Law House" (DLH) had her permission.
Key Facts
- The plaintiff claims title through: (i) Certificate dated 01.04.1962 issued by M/s Law Book Company, Allahabad in favour of late Sh. R.G. Sagar; (ii) Will of late Sh. R.G. Sagar dated 17.10.1995 bequeathing copyrights to late Sh. Subhash Sagar; (iii) Will of late Sh. Subhash Sagar dated 21.01.2021 bequeathing copyrights to the plaintiff
- Late Sh. R.G. Sagar and late Sh. B.L. Sagar were partners in M/s Law Book Company, Allahabad under partnership deed dated 02.04.1951, retiring from the firm with effect from 01.04.1961
- Settlement of partnership account dated 05.04.1961 allegedly transferred specific copyrights to late Sh. R.G. Sagar, recorded in certificate dated 01.04.1962
- Guidelines titled "Guidelines on the Allocation of Copyrights" dated 01.12.1995 were executed inter se family members
- Defendant no. 2 (Mohan Sagar) is first cousin of plaintiff's late husband and described as brother-in-law
- Defendant no. 3 is daughter-in-law of defendant no. 2; defendant no. 4 is son of defendant no. 2 and husband of defendant no. 3
- Defendant no. 1, "The Delhi Law House" (TDLH), constituted in 2021 by defendant nos. 2 and 3 with 60% and 40% profit share
- Defendant no. 5, "Delhi Law House" (DLH), is partnership firm with: defendant no. 6 (Subhash Sagar HUF) holding 50%, Mohan Sagar HUF holding 45% (defendant nos. 2, 3, 4 as coparceners), and defendant no. 4 individually holding 5%
- Defendant no. 2 appointed manager of DLH under partnership deed dated 16.04.1996
- Plaintiff purchased five titles under Invoice No. 1217 dated 23.03.2024 (raised by defendant no. 1) and Invoice No. 999 dated 29.03.2024 (raised by third-party distributor)
- Partnership DLH allegedly existed since 1981, reduced to writing in 1992, reconstituted on 16.04.1996 when defendant no. 6 inducted, and again reconstituted in 2016 when R.G. Sagar (HUF) retired and defendant no. 4 inducted
Procedural History
- 22.12.2023: Legal notice sent by plaintiff to defendants
- Date not specified: Present suit instituted thereafter
- 07.10.2026: Judgment pronounced on interim injunction application (I.A. 31143/2024)
Relief Sought
Plaintiff sought ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 to 4, their partners, directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, licensees and anyone acting for or on their behalf from: (a) Using, transferring, sharing, copying or dealing in any manner whatsoever in plaintiff's copyrights (b) Using/copying in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of plaintiff's copyrights (c) Passing off of plaintiff's copyrights
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright ownership in the 47 titles sufficient to warrant grant of an interim injunction, particularly when her title rested on disputed testamentary instruments and a certificate lacking proof of assignment from the authors.
Arguments Presented
For the Plaintiff
Relied on the unbroken chain of title: certificate dated 01.04.1962 → Will of R.G. Sagar (17.10.1995) → Will of Subhash Sagar (21.01.2021). Contended that DLH published titles only with plaintiff's permission as copyright owner, and defendant no. 2, as salaried manager of DLH since 1996, was aware of this arrangement. Argued that catalogues of TDLH for 2023-2024, invoice dated 23.03.2024, and open market purchases established infringement by defendant nos. 1 to 4. Cited Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia to assert that injunction normally follows in copyright infringement cases.
For the Defendants
Contended that plaintiff placed no document of assignment by authors on record, making her title invalid. Challenged the certificate dated 01.04.1962 as vaguely worded, unstamped, unregistered, and unmentioned in partnership deeds of 1992, 1996, or 2016. Disputed the Will of R.G. Sagar (17.10.1995) on grounds of disputed signature, pending police complaint, lack of registration endorsement, exclusion of four daughters, and surfacing only with the suit. Questioned the Will of Subhash Sagar (21.01.2021) due to inconsistent pleading dates and testator's health in December 2020. Stated that guidelines dated 01.12.1995 were incomplete, unsigned, and not acted upon. Relied on Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. to argue that a legatee takes only what the testator held, and since R.G. Sagar's authorship was not established, no title passed. Asserted that plaintiff's grievance was merely about revenue share, not copyright infringement, and that balance of convenience favoured defendants as accounts could be directed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court applied the settled principles for grant of interim injunction from Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunanina Singh, requiring plaintiff to satisfy the triple test: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable injury. It held that failure on any one ground warrants rejection.
On prima facie case, the Court emphasized that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author is the first owner of copyright, and title can only be derived by written assignment under Section 18 or transmission recognised by the Act. The plaintiff, not being the author, must disclose the work, its author, and the agreement under which she acquired title (Tech Plus Media (P) Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda).
The Court found: "The plaintiff has not placed on record any document of assignment by any of the authors, either in favour of M/s Law Book Company or in favour of late Sh. R.G. Sagar." The certificate dated 01.04.1962 was deemed insufficient as it only recorded a transfer from M/s Law Book Company to R.G. Sagar, without showing how the Company acquired copyright from authors. The Wills could not fill this gap as "a legatee takes only what the testator held" (Najma Heptulla), and since R.G. Sagar's authorship was not established, no title passed via bequest.
The Court expressly refrained from making findings on the genuineness of the Wills or certificate, stating: "Whether these documents are genuine is a matter for trial on evidence, and this Court refrains from returning any finding thereon." It held that "a claim to copyright which rests on disputed testamentary instruments, and whose root in an assignment by the authors is not disclosed, does not demonstrate the existence of a prima facie right as contemplated in Dalpat Kumar."
Regarding balance of convenience, the Court noted the plaintiff's grievance was "in substance, about the share in the revenues earned from the titles" and that "the titles in question have been published for decades under the banner of DLH, a family business managed by defendant no. 2." It found balance of convenience not in plaintiff's favour, citing Najma Heptulla where injunction was declined to legal representative of an author when accounts could be directed.
On irreparable injury, the Court held that alleged loss of revenue was capable of computation and recovery, citing Shruti Manav Sharma: "It is not mere financial loss capable of computation and recovery from a solvent party... that courts... have held to be adequately met by an award of damages."
Since plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case, the Court did not need to examine the other two conditions, declaring the application liable to fail on that ground alone.
The Verdict
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of copyright ownership. The application for ex-parte ad interim injunction was dismissed as the plaintiff had not shown a serious question to be tried or probability of obtaining relief at trial. No monetary relief, interest rates, or compliance timelines were granted as the injunction was denied outright. The Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and for the purpose of deciding the application, leaving all contentions open for trial on evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Title Must Be Independently Established
Practitioners must now prove a clear chain of title originating from the author's written assignment before seeking interim relief in copyright suits. Reliance solely on testamentary documents or certificates without proof of authorship-derived title is insufficient. The burden lies on the plaintiff to disclose the work, its author, and the agreement under which title was acquired.
Revenue Disputes Do Not Constitute Copyright Infringement
Where the plaintiff's grievance is merely about share in revenues from works published by a family business, and not about unauthorized use of copyright, courts will decline interim injunctions. Balance of convenience will favour the defendant when accounts can be directed and monitored, as monetary losses are compensable by damages.
Testamentary Instruments Require Independent Validation
Courts will refrain from making findings on the genuineness of Wills or certificates at the interim stage. Such documents must be validated through trial evidence before they can support a claim of copyright title. Plaintiffs cannot rely on disputed testamentary instruments to bypass the requirement of proving authorship-based ownership.
Newsletter Block
nl_title: Copyright Act | Prima Facie Ownership Required for Interim Injunction : Delhi HC nl_summary: Court denied interim injunction in copyright suit where plaintiff claimed title through disputed Wills and certificate, finding no prima facie case established as she failed to show assignment from authors. nl_why_matters: Practitioners must now establish clear chain of title from authors before seeking interim relief in copyright suits, especially when relying on testamentary documents, as courts will not accept disputed instruments as proof of ownership at interlocutory stage. nl_decision: Application for ex-parte ad interim injunction dismissed as plaintiff failed to show prima facie copyright ownership; no amounts or timelines granted as relief was denied outright. impact_quote: Since the plaintiff has not been able to show a prima facie right in the copyrights claimed, the question of infringement does not arise at this stage. nl_key_section: Section 17, Copyright Act, 1957
