Regarding Section 60 of the Copyright Act, the Bombay High Court emphasizes that an inquiry into ‘groundless legal proceedings’ cannot conclusively determine the question of copyright infringement

Case: Manya Vejju @ MV Kasi vs Sapna Bhog

Coram: Justice N.J Jamadar

Case No.: APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.438 OF 2023

Court Observation: “It would be hazardous to lay down an abstract proposition that FIR does not amount to threat of groundless action or that once FIR is lodged, main part of Section 60 ceases to operate eo instante. In my view, the proper question to be posed is, whether the FIR satisfies the description of an “action” ?,”

“transgresses the remit of determination under the enacting part of Section 60 of the Act, as it ventures deep into the arena of infringement of the copyright or otherwise, in substance.”

Previous Posts

Efficient judicial functioning is jeopardized when parties are permitted to backtrack from their commitments without providing any justifiable reasons, as emphasized by the Delhi High Court

J&K High Court stresses that Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be interpreted in line with the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21

Delhi High Court Orders Litigant Claiming Ownership of Territory Between Ganga and Yamuna from Agra to Gurugram to Pay ₹10,000 in Costs

Calcutta High Court states that arranging groups in the tender process with clear distinctions is acceptable; it shouldn’t be criticized just because it may not be convenient for all bidders

In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must independently prove the ‘Pendency of Official Favour,’ without relying on external support: AP High Court

Keywords

Regarding Section 60 of the Copyright Act, Bombay High Court