LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 554Decided 27 Sept 2021
Civil Appeal Nos. 5985-5987 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Background

FM radio broadcasters challenged Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 before the Madras High Court, arguing that its requirement of detailed prior notice (with royalty, duration, time-slot details etc.) before broadcasting copyrighted music was unworkable. While that challenge was pending, the High Court passed an interim order effectively rewriting the rule, letting broadcasters give these details within fifteen days after the broadcast instead of beforehand. Music companies, including Saregama, appealed this interim order to the Supreme Court, arguing that a court cannot rewrite a statutory rule, especially at an interim stage before the underlying challenge to the rule's validity has even been decided.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that courts exercising judicial review can strike down a rule if it is unconstitutional or exceeds its parent statute, but cannot substitute their own redrafted version of a rule for the one actually made by the rule-making authority: that is a legislative function, not a judicial one. The High Court's interim order had gone beyond interpreting Rule 29(4) and had instead created a new compliance regime of its own, converting an exception (the 24-hour post-facto notice for unforeseen broadcasts) into the routine rule for everyone. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's interim order, while expressly leaving the actual question of Rule 29(4)'s validity open for the High Court to decide when it finally hears the underlying writ petitions.

Lesson Learnt

Even when faced with a rule that seems impractical, courts cannot rewrite it under the guise of interim relief, altering statutory rules is the job of the legislature or its authorised rule-making body, not the judiciary.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case