Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Copyright Act, 1957

33 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION & ORS.

2018 INSC 102230 October 2018Dismissed

Star India Private Limited challenged the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the accompanying Tariff Order, alleging that TRAI had overstepped its jurisdiction by regulating the content, pricing and packaging of TV channels, which they argued

M/S. PARAGON RUBBER INDUSTRIESversusM/S. PRAGATHI RUBBER MILLS & ORS.

2013 INSC 79829 November 2013Dismissed

The plaintiff, Paragon Rubber Industries, filed a suit in the District Court of Kottayam seeking relief under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The defendants challenged the suit's territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the 1958 Act. The trial cou

SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITEDversusNEXT RADIO LIMITED & ORS.

2021 INSC 55427 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Madras High Court, in an interim order, altered Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 by allowing broadcasters to furnish notice details within fifteen days after a broadcast and treating the 24‑hour exception as a routine procedure. Saregama India Ltd and other appellants challenged this order, arguing that the

FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

2018 INSC 90427 September 2018Dismissed

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) entered into a development agreement with Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No.3), who later terminated the agreement and sought certified copies of the development plans, layouts and related documents filed with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under the Right to Inform

BRIGADIER MAN MOHAN SHARMA, FRGS (RETD.)versusLT. GEN. DEPINDER SINGH

2008 INSC 135326 November 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh (author) entered a publication agreement with Dattatreya Prakashan, later acquired by the appellant (Trishul Publications). After publishing the first and second editions, the appellant refused further editions and suggested the author authorize another publisher, Natraj Publishers, to reprint 1

SWAPNIL TRIPATHIversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2018 INSC 88626 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of open courts, the rights

M/S. NANDHINI DELUXEversusM/S. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD.

2018 INSC 64226 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (respondent) had been using the mark ‘NANDINI’ for milk and milk products since 1985, while the restaurant chain M/s. Nandhini Deluxe (appellant) began using the mark ‘NANDHINI’ for its restaurants in 1989 and later applied for registration of the mark for various foo

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDU., MANIPAL & ANR.versusB. MALINI MALLYA

2009 INSC 5623 January 2009Dismissed

Dr. Karanth, a noted cultural figure, created a new form of Yakshagana ballet called Yaksharanga, comprising seven Prasangas, and bequeathed the copyright in these works to Malini Mallya by a will. The Academy of General Education performed the ballets without obtaining permission, leading the trial court to grant a pe

UNION OF INDIAversusBOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 78622 August 2017Dismissed

The Union of India challenged the re‑telecast of live cricket feeds, shared by Star India and ESPN with Prasar Bharati under Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, by cable operators under Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. The pet

GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.versusBIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & ORS.

1984 INSC 4021 February 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The Gramophone Company of India sought to prevent the import of cassette recordings it alleged were pirated and destined for transit to Nepal. It applied to the Registrar of Copyrights under s.53 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to have the cassettes declared prohibited imports. The Calcutta High Court allowed the Registrar

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusNAGOTIVENKATARAMANA

1996 INSC 90920 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh prosecuted N. Venkatramana, a video shop owner, for possessing 90 video cassettes that lacked the statutory particulars required under Section 52-A of the Copyright Act, 1957. The trial court convicted him under Section 63, imposing six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000, a sentence

M/S KNIT PRO INTERNATIONALversusTHE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

2022 INSC 62120 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/S Knit Pro International filed a criminal application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to register an FIR against respondent No.2 for alleged violations of Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR was registered, but the respondent obtained a writ order from the Delhi High Court

M/S BENGAL WATERPROOF LIMITEDversusMIS BOMBAY WATERPROOF MANUFACTURING CO. AND ANR.

1996 INSC 132118 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Bengal Waterproof Ltd., holder of the registered trademark ‘Duck Back’, sued Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Co. for infringement and passing off. The first suit (1980) was dismissed, and a second suit (1982) was filed alleging continuous infringement after the first suit. The trial court and High Court held the second

M/S ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK (INDIA) LTD.versusM/S SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD.

2008 INSC 70816 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. (Radio Mirchi) and Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. over the broadcast of copyrighted sound recordings. The appellant sought a compulsory licence under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, after the Copyright Board had fixed royalty

DABUR INDIA LTD.versusK.R. INDUSTRIES

2008 INSC 72516 May 2008Dismissed

Dabur India Ltd., the maker of "Dabur Red Tooth Powder", sued K.R. Industries for copyright infringement of its packaging and for passing off. The Delhi High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the passing‑off claim, relying on the Dhodha House decision. Dabur appealed, a

M/S. DHODHA HOUSEversusS.K. MAINGI

2005 INSC 61715 December 2005

The Supreme Court considered two appeals arising from suits alleging infringement of copyright and trade‑mark rights – one by Dhodha House (sweet‑meats) filed in the Ghaziabad district court and another by Patel Field Marshal (diesel engines) filed in the Delhi High Court. Both lower courts had held they lacked territo

KRISHIKA LULLA & ORS.versusSHYAM VITHALRAO DEVKATIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 78115 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta filed a criminal complaint under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 alleging that the film "Desi Boyz" infringed the copyright in the title of his story synopsis "Desi Boys". The accused filed applications under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint; the Bombay High Court dismissed

CRYOGAS EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINOX INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 48315 April 2025Dismissed

The dispute arose when Inox India Ltd filed a trademark suit alleging that Cryogas Equipment Pvt Ltd and LNG Express infringed its proprietary engineering drawings and related literary works used in cryogenic semi‑trailers. LNG Express moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the drawings w

SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTIversusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2016 INSC 113114 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Babu Digumarti, was charged under IPC Sections 292 and 294 and IT Act Section 67 for alleged possession of obscene material in electronic form. He was discharged of the IT Act charge but the trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 292, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITEDversusRAM BABU & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 82814 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

Asian Paints Ltd., a paint manufacturer, discovered that counterfeit paints bearing its brand were being sold by Ram Babu. The company, through a power of attorney, engaged an IPR consultancy to investigate and the investigation led to an FIR under the IPC and Copyright Act. The trial court convicted Ram Babu, but the

VICCO LABORATORIES AND ANR.versusART COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 35913 August 2001Dismissed

Vicco Laboratories, a manufacturer of ayurvedic products, hired Art Commercial Advertising and its partners to produce a television serial titled "Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi" for Doordarshan, paying them a fixed sum as sponsorship. Vicco claimed it was the producer and owner of the copyright and the exclusive right to use the

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS.versusD.B. MODAK & ANR.

2007 INSC 126612 December 2007Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the copy‑edited versions of Supreme Court judgments published in the law report "Supreme Court Cases" (SCC) qualify as original literary works eligible for copyright. It held that the judgments themselves are government works in the public domain and their reproduction does not infrin

MAHENDRA AND MAHENDRA PAPER MILLS LTD.versusMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.

2001 INSC 5689 November 2001Dismissed

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a long‑standing user of the registered trademark "Mahindra", sued Mahendra & Mahindra Paper Mills Ltd. for passing‑off and trademark infringement, seeking permanent and interim injunctions to stop the defendant from using the name "Mahendra & Mahendra". The Bombay High Court granted an interim

TARUN TYAGIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2017 INSC 12618 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Tarun Tyagi was charged with stealing the source code of the 'Quick Recovery' software and selling it through his own company. The CBI seized three hard disks (Q‑2, Q‑9, Q‑20) containing the alleged source code. Tyagi sought copies of these disks under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prepare his defenc

POWER CONTROL APPLIANCES AND ORS.versusSUMEET MACHINES PVT. LTD.

1994 INSC 548 February 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, Power Control Appliances and related companies, owned the copyright in the packaging, instruction manual, guarantee card and the design of the 'whipper blade' of their 'Sumeet' kitchen mixers, and the registered trade mark 'Sumeet'. The defendant, Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., began manufacturing and marke

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD.versusMUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 2004 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Copyright Board, under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, could grant an interim compulsory licence while a complaint was pending. The Board had earlier held it lacked such power, but the Delhi High Court reversed that view and directed the Board to grant an interim lice

T.V. VENUGOPALversusUSHODAYA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANR.

2011 INSC 1763 March 2011Disposed off

The appellant, a Karnataka‑based incense‑stick manufacturer, adopted the mark "Eenadu" for its products and sold them in Andhra Pradesh. The respondent, a prominent Telugu newspaper and media group, claimed that the mark had acquired extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the state and that the appellant’s use amount

THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusSHAUNAK H.SATYA & ORS.

2011 INSC 6402 September 2011Case Partly allowed

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) conducted examinations for chartered accountants and was asked by Shaunak H. Satya, a failed candidate, to disclose the instructions, model answers and related materials given to examiners and moderators under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The issues we

INDIAN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD.versusSANJAY DALIA&ANR.

2015 INSC 4521 July 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether sections 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allow a plaintiff to sue in a district court where it resides or carries on business even when the cause of action has also arisen at its principal place of business. The Court held that these provisions creat

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search