In the Delhi Law House copyright dispute, the High Court found that the root of the plaintiff’s title was not disclosed at this stage, and so would not stop the sale of 47 law books.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: An application to stop The Delhi Law House and members of the Sagar family from publishing and selling 47 legal books has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court, which held that the plaintiff, Shakti Sagar, had not established a prima facie right to the copyrights she claimed [Shakti Sagar v. Delhi Law House and Others].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav left the questions of who owns the copyrights, and whether the wills the plaintiff relies on are valid, to be decided at trial.
Why the injunction was refused
Copyright vests first in the author, the Court noted, and an assignment has to be in writing. Nothing before it showed how the Law Book Company had acquired the copyrights from the authors. On that gap, it observed:
“The root of the plaintiff’s title is, therefore, not disclosed at this stage.”
The books and the claim
Shakti Sagar, the widow of publisher Subhash Sagar, wanted the defendants restrained from publishing and selling 47 legal works. They include Sanjiva Row’s Commentary on the Contract Act, first published in 1910, and Anand and Iyer’s Commentary on the Specific Relief Act, whose third edition appeared in 1949, as well as works on firearms and forensic ballistics, guardianship and benami property.
Her case is that the copyrights first belonged to her father-in-law, R.G. Sagar, who acquired them on retiring from the Law Book Company, Allahabad, in 1961, and she relied on a 1962 certificate and two successive wills. She alleged that the defendants formed a partnership called The Delhi Law House in 2021 and published and sold the books without her permission. The defendants disputed her ownership and argued that no written assignments from the original authors had been produced. These are the parties’ contentions and have not been tested at trial.
The Court further saw the dispute as closely tied to the family partnership and the alleged diversion of revenues, and noted that any financial loss could be compensated in damages.
Case Title: Shakti Sagar v. Delhi Law House and Others
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
Date of Report: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Gaurav Bahl for the plaintiff; Advocates Sanjay Vashishtha, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Siddhartha and Aditya for the defendants