
Understanding “Substantial Compliance” in light of Sabita Jha v. Aaone Developers
by Pritthish Roy* and Nancy Goel**
by Pritthish Roy* and Nancy Goel**
The present cause of action arose on 26-05-2025 when the plaintiff discovered that rogue websites were unlawfully streaming IPL 2025 matches without authorization. Given the plaintiff’s exclusive rights over such content, the plaintiff reasonably apprehends similar unlawful streaming during the upcoming India Tour of England 2025.
Calcutta High Court observed that the impugned order appears to have been issued in oversight of the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The defendants are websites that are making the plaintiff’s series/show available to the public without procuring any valid license or authorization from the plaintiff. These defendants’ websites unlawfully provide access to infringing content free of charge, without requiring users to register. The availability of such content is monetized through advertisements displayed on these platforms.
Sufficient time must be given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody.
Calcutta High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the vandalism at RG Kar Hospital, ordering the State to submit an affidavit with photographic evidence to ensure the crime scene remains intact.