It said that it had licensed RPS to operate within its premises to provide photocopying services to students for educational and research purposes; that under Section 52(1)(i), there is no limit to the amount of copyrighted material that may be reproduced.

On 17 October 2012, the Delhi High Court passed an interim stay order to grant a temporary injunction against Rameshwari Photocopy Service, preventing them from selling compiled course packs to students.

[7][8] On 16 September 2016, a single-judge bench headed by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the lawsuit and lifted the injunction, allowing RPS to resume selling the course packs.

[7] On 9 December 2016, a two-judge division bench headed by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog set aside the earlier judgment and allowed the lawsuit to continue, but did not re-issue the temporary injunction.

[9] According to news report of The Hindu, the publishers had told the division Bench that they had decided to withdraw the suit against Rameshwari Photocopy shop as they did not want to engage in a legal battle with their stakeholders — the educational institutions.

[12][10] On 3 June 2017, the Financial Times also covered an extensive story on the case illustrating data from Nielsen that despite lack of public numbers, the publishers still made considerable profitable growth in India.