Mr Ilaiyaraaja vs Saregama India Limited

$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
MR ILAIYARAAJA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Mr. Ritik
Raghuwanshi, Ms. Rishika Agarwal, Ms.
Anshul Tulsyan, Advs.
versus
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr Akhil Sibal, Sr Adv. and Mr
J Sai Deepak, Sr Adv. with Mr Ankur
Sangal, Mr Ankit Arvind, Ms Sucheta Roy,
Mr Shashwat Rakshit, Mr Rishabh Rao, Ms
Sarah Haque, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 26.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 37043/2026 ( Exemption )
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 256/2026
3. We have heard Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned Senior Counsel
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
18:03:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 Page 1 of 5

for the appellant/review petitioner and Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. J Sai
Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
4. To a query from the Court as to the error apparent in the
judgment dated 21 May 2026, of which review is sought, Ms.
Sukumar has drawn our attention to paras 34 and 35 of our decision
which read thus:
“34. Without a licence, or permission, from SIL, therefore, VFIL
could not have exploited any of the sound recordings contained in
the film Moodu Pani , including the sound recording relating to the
song En Iniya Pon Nilave . By recreating/adapting the said sound
recording, therefore, VFIL has infringed the copyright of SIL.
35. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in
passing the impugned order of injunction. Though our reasoning
differs, on some minor aspects, with that of the learned Single
Judge, we are in agreement on the ultimate outcome.”
5. Ms. Sukumar’s principal contention is that, in the aforesaid
paragraphs, this Court has effectively also injuncted the appellant
from using the sound recording of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave ,
which was never the subject matter of controversy. She submits that,
by doing so, we have gone even beyond the findings of the learned
Single Judge.
6. On reading the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
juxtaposition with ours, we are unable to agree with Ms. Sukumar.
The learned Single Judge has, in paras 27, 29 and 30 of her judgment
dated 30 January 2025, observed and held as under:
“27. The defendant no. 3, as music composer of the song in
question, in view of Section 17, proviso (b) of the Copyright Act,
has already exhausted his right under Section 14(1)(v) of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
18:03:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 Page 2 of 5

Copyright Act. However, the defendant no. 3 is entitled to carry
out all the other acts in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright
Act, except to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect
of the musical work .
*
29. Considering the definition of author, as given in Section
2(d) and provisions of Section 17 proviso (b) of the Copyright Act,
it is clear that in case of soundtrack/sound recording, which forms
part of a cinematograph film, the producer of the film is the author,
who shall be the first owner of the copyright therein , in the absence
of any agreement to the contrary. However, the right of the
composer of the music shall be safeguarded in terms of Section
13(4) and 14(1) of the Copyright Act, otherwise than as a part of
the cinematograph film . Meaning thereby, the rights of the music
composer, which is part of a cinematograph film, in terms of
Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act, shall include the right to carry
out all the acts, except to make any cinematograph film or a record
in respect of the work as envisaged under Section 14(1)(v), as the
said right of the music composer gets exhausted in terms of Section
17 proviso (b) of the Copyright Act.
30. It is also to be noted that the copyright in the song, which
vests with a producer of the film, includes the musical work, the
literary work, i.e., the lyrics, and the sound recording, which
includes, musical composition as well as lyrics. The defendant no.
3, as the music composer, has no copyright over the literary work,
i.e., the lyrics or the sound recording . Therefore, having no rights
over the lyrics of the song, there is no question of defendant no. 3
having any right to assign rights in the lyrics of the song to a third
party. In the present case, on the basis of the agreement with
defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 1 has used the lyrics and musical
composition of the song, in order to recreate the sound recording
of the said song . In the absence of any rights in the lyrics of the
song, the defendant no. 3 was not entitled to assign any right with
respect thereto. Thus, on this account also, the defendant no. 1 is
not entitled to claim any right on the basis of an agreement with
the defendant no. 3 .”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The learned Single Judge has clearly held, in the afore-extracted
paragraphs, that Ilaiyaraaja had no copyright in the sound recording of
the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave and that, therefore, there could
be no question of assigning the copyright in the sound recording to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
18:03:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 Page 3 of 5

1
VFIL , or any use thereof by VFIL.
8. The submissions of Ms. Sukumar, to our mind, ignore the
fundamental fact that the very definition of “cinematograph film” in
Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act includes the sound recordings
forming part of the film, which accompany the video recording of the
film. In, therefore, emphasising that the copyright in the
cinematograph film vests with the producer of the film, the learned
Single Judge has, at more places than one in paras 27, 29 and 30 of her
judgment, noted that Ilaiyaraaja could not have licensed the copyright
in the sound recordings or the lyrical component of the disputed song
to any third party including VFIL.
9. We express our entire concurrence therewith, and have done so,
in our judgment of which review is sought.
10. The emphasis that Ms. Sukumar seeks to place between
recreation and adaptation, to our mind, is merely a distinction without
a difference. Notably, the Copyright Act does not envisage
“recreation” as a distinct specie of activity, which is permissible in
law, even if adaptation is not. In any event, that cannot be made
subject matter of a review petition, as it effectively questions the
correctness of the view that we have taken, in law, which cannot be
revisited in review, not being one apparent from the record, if at all.
11. Mr. Sibal also points out that, ultimately, this Court had
concurred with the final decision of the learned Single Judge, paras 41
1
Vels Film International Ltd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
18:03:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 Page 4 of 5

to 43 of which read as under:
“41. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
it is directed that the defendant no. 1 shall be allowed to use the
song in question in its cinematograph film, subject to deposit of Rs.
30 Lac with the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of
two days. The said amount shall be deposited by the defendant no.
1 with the Registrar General of this Court, without prejudice to its
rights and contentions, as the rights and contentions of both the
parties are left open, which are subject matter of final adjudication.
42. It is further clarified that the observations made in the
present judgment, are only prima facie in nature and nothing
contained herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits
of the case.
43. This Court further notes the submission of defendant no.1
that it does not intend to pay any further amount, as it has already
paid substantial amount to defendant no. 3. Thus, in case the
defendant no. 1 does not intend to deposit the aforesaid amount, as
directed by this Court, the defendant no. 1 shall stand injuncted
from using the song in question, in its cinematograph film,
‘Aghathiyaa’.
12. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to review our
judgment dated 21 May 2026. The review petition is dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 26, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
18:03:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025 Page 5 of 5