The judgment extensively referenced both domestic and international precedents to substantiate its findings. Notably, it discussed the Irish Supreme Court's decision in The Performing Right Society v. Bray Urban District Council (1928 Ir R 506), which initially suggested the discontinuance of the Imperial Copyright Act upon a dominion attaining self-governing status. However, this was contrasted with the dissenting opinion of Lord Sankey in the Privy Council, emphasizing the restricted definition of "self-governing dominion" within the Act.

Additionally, the court referred to State of Madras v. C.G. Menon (1954 SCJ 621 : AIR 1954 SC 517) and In Re Government of India and Mubarak Ali (1952-1 All ER 1060), which dealt with the applicability of colonial laws post-Independence and Republic formation. These cases highlighted the principle that constitutional changes do not automatically nullify established private rights under existing laws.

The judgment also drew parallels with international law principles, citing works like Hyde's “International Law” and authorities like Dicey and Cheshire, to underscore that changes in sovereignty do not inherently disrupt private law unless explicitly altered by competent legislative bodies.

The core legal issue revolved around whether the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 remained in force after India gained independence and became a Republic. The court meticulously dissected various statutory provisions:

• Section 25-28 of the Copyright Act of 1911: Determining the territorial extent and applicability to self-governing dominions.
• Indian Independence Act of 1947: Examining its effect on existing laws, particularly focusing on sections 18(2) and 18(3) which addressed the continuation and adaptation of pre-existing laws.
• Indian Constitution, Article 372: Affirming the continuance of "existing laws" post-Constitution, unless modified by the legislature.

The court deduced that the Imperial Copyright Act, as incorporated into the Indian Copyright Act of 1914, continued to govern copyright in India. The judgment emphasized that private rights, such as copyrights, remain unaffected by sovereignty changes unless expressly repealed or amended by the competent legislature—a condition not met in this case.

Moreover, regarding the infringement allegations, the court adopted the principle that both the quantity and quality of copied material determine substantiality, referencing authorities like Copinger on Copyright. The defendants' guides were found to reproduce substantial parts of the copyrighted works, thereby constituting infringement.

The defendants' defense of "fair dealing" under the first proviso of Section 2(1) was scrutinized and ultimately rejected. The court reasoned that the purposes outlined (private study, research, criticism, review, or newspaper summary) did not align with the defendants' commercial publications, and thus, the reproduction was not fair.

This judgment solidified the applicability of the Imperial Copyright Act in Independent India, thereby maintaining continuity in copyright law. It underscored the principle that constitutional and sovereignty changes do not automatically nullify existing private rights under inherited statutes.

Furthermore, the case set a precedent for evaluating copyright infringement based on both the extent and nature of the reproduced material. It also clarified the boundaries of "fair dealing" in the context of commercial publications, limiting defenses against infringement claims.

For future cases, this judgment provides a foundational reference on the interplay between colonial-era legislation and post-Independence statutory modifications, guiding courts in similar jurisprudential issues.