Office Location

Delhi:

E-5, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi - 110024
Tel : 011-24336744

----------------------------------------

Mumbai:

Office No. 1410, 14th Floor, Maker Chamber V, Nariman Point, Mumbai
Tel : +91 22-22873499

----------------------------------------

Gurgaon:

Level 18, One Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122002, India
Tel : +91 124 668 8146 / +91 124 668 8147

----------------------------------------

Mumbai (Entertainment and Media Practice)

Office No. 213, 2nd Floor, A-wing, Crystal Plaza, Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Tel : 022-62360762

----------------------------------------

Mumbai (Corporate and Transactional Practice)

909/A, Capital Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, East Mumbai- 400098

----------------------------------------

Bangalore:

21/2, 1st Main Road,
Opp Indian overseas Bank,
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru - 560009

----------------------------------------

Kanpur:

77A, Cantt., Kanpur - 208004

Supreme Court Refuses IRRO Appeal in DU Photocopy Case

A Supreme Court bench refused to admit the IRRO appeal. Asking their counsel as to how their special leave petition (SLP) to appeal is even maintainable. Given that the original suit filed before the Delhi high court had been withdrawn by the publisher plaintiffs and the IRRO was merely an intervenor in the lower court proceedings.

The Division Bench, before the Hon’ble High Court comprising Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna, had refused to grant an interim injunction to the publishers, emphatically ruling that making and distribution of course packs to students does not amount to copyright infringement as long as the inclusion of the works photocopied was justified by the purpose of educational instruction. Accordingly, it had remanded the suit to the single bench for a fact specific determination on whether the copyrighted materials included in the course packs in this case were necessary for the purpose of instructional use by the teacher to the class or not. On January 30, 2017, the single judge had refused to allow IRRO and the publishers’ associations, FIP and API (who had intervened in the appeal before the Division Bench) to intervene or be impleaded in the remanded proceedings before it, holding that the Division Bench had remanded the suit only for a factual determination as to the purpose of inclusion of the copyrighted works in the course packs and no party except the plaintiff-publishers had a say in it. IRRO, FIP and API had, thus, applied to the Division Bench for clarification on the remanded issues. While the matter was pending, in a surprising move, the publishers had withdrawn the suit on March 9, 2017.