Interim injunctions in copyright suits are won on title, and title is won on paper. In Mrs. Shakti Sagar v. The Delhi Law House & Ors. (CS(COMM) 492/2024, decided on 7 October 2026), Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court dismissed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from publishing 47 law titles. The plaintiff — claiming through a 1962 certificate and two family wills — could not show the one document the Copyright Act, 1957 makes indispensable for a non-author: a written, signed assignment tracing title from the authors themselves.
A publishing family divided
The suit concerns the legacy of a legal publishing house. The plaintiff, widow of Subhash Sagar and daughter-in-law of R.G. Sagar, alleged that defendants 1 to 4 operate "The Delhi Law House" from the premises of the family firm Delhi Law House, using its domain and email identities, and sell her scheduled titles without licence. The defendants answered with a battery of objections: the authors own the copyright absent assignment; the wills are disputed and unproved; a 2016 reconstitution deed released the patriarch\'s interests; and the suit faced a Section 12A Commercial Courts Act pre-institution mediation objection besides.
The statutory spine of the decision
| Provision | What it requires | How it applied |
|---|---|---|
| Section 17, Copyright Act | The author is the first owner of copyright | The plaintiff is not an author of any of the 47 works |
| Sections 18–19 | Assignment must be in writing, signed by the assignor | No assignment from the authors — or from Law Book Company to R.G. Sagar — was produced |
| Succession principles | A will passes only what the testator held | Neither testator being an author or proved assignee, the wills could not transmit copyright |
| Order XXXIX CPC | Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury | All three failed; the injunction was refused |
Why Midas Hygiene did not rescue the application
Plaintiffs in IP suits habitually invoke the principle that injunctions follow infringement almost as of course. The court\'s response here is instructive: that principle operates after ownership is shown, not as a substitute for showing it. Likewise, the precedent in which an author\'s own will transmitted copyright was distinguished — the testamentary route works when the testator is the author or a proved assignee, and fails when the will is asked to conjure a title the testator never held. The judgment is a reminder that in copyright litigation, the chain of title is examined link by link, and the first missing link ends the inquiry.
Lessons for publishing and family businesses
Paper the assignments contemporaneously: every commissioned work, revision and edition should carry a written, signed assignment or an employment framework under Section 17. Keep the corporate and family layers separate — publishing from a firm\'s premises under a similar name creates exactly the goodwill entanglement this suit displays. Where title rests on succession, obtain probate or letters of administration before suing on the will. And assess the remedy realistically: where the grievance is fundamentally about revenue share, courts will steer the dispute towards accounts and damages rather than mid-stream injunctions.
The findings are expressly prima facie: authorship, the assignments, the wills, the 1962 certificate, the 2016 reconstitution deed and the defences all remain open for trial. The order decides only that the plaintiff\'s interim case did not meet the Order XXXIX threshold.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the plaintiff's claimed chain of title?
She relied on a 1962 certificate from Law Book Company, a 1995 will of her father-in-law R.G. Sagar, and a 2021 will of her husband Subhash Sagar, claiming the copyright in 47 titles published under the Delhi Law House banner. The defendants, who run a publishing business from the family firm's premises, disputed the wills and pointed out that no written assignment from any author had been produced.
Why were the wills insufficient?
A legatee takes only what the testator owned. Neither testator was an author of the works, so unless the testators themselves held a written assignment under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, there was nothing for the wills to pass. One will was disputed and unregistered, neither was probated, and the court found the very root of the plaintiff's title undisclosed.
Did the admission by one defendant help the plaintiff?
No. Defendant 5 — the family firm — admitted the plaint and supported the relief, but the court held that one defendant's admission cannot bind the contesting defendants, who were entitled to put the plaintiff to proof of her independent title.
What tipped balance of convenience and irreparable injury against the plaintiff?
The titles had been published for decades under the Delhi Law House banner, and the plaintiff's real grievance was a share of revenues — she sought accounts and damages. Following the approach in Najma Heptulla, the court found the loss computable in money, which defeats irreparable injury, and declined to disturb a long-standing publishing status quo at the interim stage.