The present case revolves around a copyright dispute concerning the song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the 1980 Tamil film Moodu Pani. Saregama India Limited, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Vels Film International Limited and others, alleging copyright infringement over the use of the song in the upcoming film Aghathiyaa. The controversy arose when the defendants released a teaser for Aghathiyaa, showcasing a recreation of the song, which Saregama claimed was done without proper authorisation. The court had to determine whether the copyright in the song belonged to Saregama or whether the composer, Ilaiyaraaja (Defendant No. 3), retained rights to grant a license for adaptation.
Saregama, formerly known as The Gramophone Company of India Limited, argued that it had acquired exclusive rights to the song from Raja Cine Arts, the producer of Moodu Pani, through an agreement dated February 25, 1980. The plaintiff asserted that, under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in its musical compositions, lyrics, and sound recordings, which can then be assigned to another entity. Since Saregama had acquired these rights from the producer, it claimed absolute ownership over the song. When Saregama learned on January 9, 2025, that Aghathiyaa was set to release a recreated version of the song, it sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendants on January 10, 2025. Despite this, the defendants continued with their release plans, prompting the present lawsuit.
The defendants contested Saregama’s claim, asserting that Ilaiyaraaja, the original composer of the song, retained his rights under Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, which states that the copyright in a cinematograph film does not affect the separate copyright in any work used within it. Defendant No. 1, Vels Film International, claimed that it had lawfully obtained a license from Ilaiyaraaja to adapt and recreate the song for Aghathiyaa through an agreement dated March 17, 2023, for which it had paid INR 5,40,000. The defendants also argued that under Section 14 of the Act, Ilaiyaraaja, as the composer, retained the right to make adaptations of his musical work. They further contended that the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act reinforced the rights of composers and lyricists, ensuring that their ownership was not automatically transferred to the producer of a film.
The Delhi High Court examined the scope of copyright ownership in cinematograph films, musical compositions, and literary works. The court noted that under the unamended Copyright Act applicable at the time of Moodu Pani’s release, the producer of a cinematograph film was the first owner of the copyright in its sound recordings, including the music and lyrics. Since Raja Cine Arts had assigned these rights to Saregama in 1980, Saregama was deemed the rightful owner of the song. The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977), which held that a film producer who commissions a composer for valuable consideration becomes the first owner of the resulting musical work unless a contract states otherwise. In this case, no evidence suggested that Ilaiyaraaja had retained his rights independently of the producer.
The court also rejected the argument that the 2012 amendment to the Copyright Act, which granted composers additional rights, applied retroactively. Since the agreement between Raja Cine Arts and Saregama was executed in 1980, long before the 2012 amendment, the previous legal framework remained applicable. The amendment, the court held, was prospective in nature and did not affect contracts executed before its enactment.
Regarding the defendants’ claim that their version of the song was an adaptation, the court found that the defendants had not merely rearranged or transcribed the musical work but had instead reproduced both the music and lyrics. The Copyright Act defines adaptation as an arrangement or transformation of a work, but it does not permit outright replication. Since Ilaiyaraaja had no rights over the lyrics, he could not have legally granted Defendant No. 1 permission to reproduce them. The court emphasised that literary works (lyrics) and musical compositions are distinct under copyright law, and Ilaiyaraaja, as a composer, had no authority over the song’s lyrics.
Given these findings, the court ruled that Saregama had established a strong prima facie case for copyright infringement. However, it also took into consideration the commercial implications of the ruling. Since Aghathiyaa was slated for release on January 31, 2025, and the defendant had already invested substantial resources into the film’s production, the court sought to balance the competing interests of both parties. Instead of outright injunctive relief, the court ordered Defendant No. 1 to deposit INR 30 lakh with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court as a license fee for using the song. If the defendant failed to comply with this condition within two days, they would be prohibited from including the song in Aghathiyaa.
The judgment clarifies that the 2012 amendments, while strengthening the rights of composers, do not apply retrospectively. The court adopted a pragmatic approach that balances copyright enforcement with commercial realities by imposing a financial condition rather than outright restraining the film’s release.