IPRS Can Claim Royalties For Musical & Literary Works In Sound Recording If It Is Commercially Exploited: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VI Appeals

Dismissing appeals filed by Vodafone Idea Limited, the Court ruled that music labels like Saregama lack the legal competence to license these underlying works—which include lyrics and compositions—as those rights are distinct from the copyright in the sound recording itself.

​The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed, “Parties have disclosed various agreements that, Vodafone and Saregama have entered into with regard to the sound recordings. None of these agreements have provided for payment of royalties that the IPRS is entitled to. On the contrary, some of the agreements between Vodafone and Saregama have noticed that, IPRS is entitled to royalties upon Vodafone commercially exploiting sound recordings. In any event, agreements between Vodafone and Saregama cannot affect the right of IPRS, if they otherwise exists."

Senior Advocate S. N. Mookherjee appeared for the Appellant, Advocate Soumya Ray Chowdhury appeared for the Indian Performing Right Society and Senior Advocate Debnath Ghosh for Saregama India Limited.

Factual Background

The two appeals were heard analogously as they arose from a common judgment delivered by the Single Judge. The Court held that IPRS possessed rights independent of Saregama and issued directions to protect the copyright society's interests.

Vodafone was involved in a tripartite legal dispute with Saregama and IPRS. The litigation involved an interpleader suit filed by Vodafone, alongside separate suits filed by Saregama and IPRS seeking injunctions against the exploitation of musical and literary works via Value Added Services.

The parties filed multiple applications for interim relief and impleadment. The Court initially granted ex parte orders allowing Vodafone to continue its services subject to deposits with the Registrar, while restraining the respondents from raising further claims. However, IPRS subsequently moved to vacate these orders, seeking payment for the exploitation of its repertoire and the disclosure of usage data and logs.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant, Vodafone, contended that its contractual arrangement with Saregama exempted it from any royalty obligations toward IPRS, asserting that the producer remains the owner of a sound recording in its composite form. Relying on both pre-amendment and post-amendment jurisprudence, Vodafone argued that a license to exploit a sound recording inherently covers the underlying musical and literary works. It was further maintained that IPRS functioned merely as a collecting agent and that no separate license was required unless the underlying works were utilized independently of the original sound recording.

Conversely, IPRS argued that Vodafone lacked any valid statutory license to commercially exploit the underlying musical and literary works, which were assigned to the copyright society well before Vodafone's agreements with the music label. Counsel emphasized that under the amended Copyright Act, the rights of authors and composers are distinct and independent of the sound recording. Furthermore, IPRS asserted that any purported licenses from Saregama had expired by operation of law and that Vodafone had previously acknowledged its independent responsibility to procure licenses from the society.

Saregama took a neutral stance regarding the broader legal conflict, submitting that its private disputes with Vodafone had reached a final settlement. The music label maintained that it held no further liability toward IPRS in the present matter, effectively leaving the core dispute to be resolved between the telecommunication provider’s claim of composite ownership and the copyright society’s assertion of independent statutory rights.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the evolution of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly the transformative 2012 Amendment. It was observed that these amendments were designed to harmonize Indian law with international WIPO treaties and protect creators in the digital age. The Court emphasized that under Section 13, copyrights in literary and musical works are distinct from the copyright in a sound recording. While a producer is defined as the person taking initiative for the recording, this does not extinguish the separate rights of the authors of the underlying works.

The Court analyzed Sections 18 and 19, noting that the 2012 Amendment introduced a "paradigm shift." Under the new provisos to Section 18, authors of literary or musical works cannot waive their right to receive royalties on an equal basis for any utilization of their work outside of a cinema hall. Any assignment contrary to these terms is deemed void. The Court clarified that while a producer can exhibit a film in a cinema hall without additional royalties, any other commercial exploitation of the sound recording triggers the author's statutory right to shared royalties.

“Therefore, in our understanding, upon reading Section 18(1), 2nd and 3rd provisos, Section 19(10) and Sections 2(d) and (y) of the Act of 1957, grant of licence or any agreement entered into by the author of literary and musical works other than the assignment to their heirs or to a copyright society or a collecting society as the case may be, is void”, it held.

The Court resolved the primary issues as follows:

Issue (i): The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that IPRS is legally entitled to claim royalties for underlying works whenever a sound recording is commercially exploited.

Issues (ii) & (iii): These were answered in the negative. The Court held that Saregama lacked the legal competence to grant licenses for underlying works it did not own, and Vodafone did not possess a valid license to exploit such content without express permission from IPRS.

It was observed, “Saregama does not have any legal authority or competence to grant licence in respect of underlying musical and literary works incorporated in sound recording of Vodafone for commercial exploitation. Vodafone does not have licence to commercially exploit the underlying contents of sound recording incorporated in the sound recordings without express permission from IPRS.”

Conclusion

Finding no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge, the Court dismissed the appeals. It directed that all funds previously deposited by Vodafone with the Registrar and Special Officers be released to IPRS, subject to a written undertaking that the society would refund the amounts should it fail in the final disposal of the pending suits.

Cause Title: Vodafone Idea Limited v. The Indian Performing Right Society Limited and another matter [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:170-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate S. N. Mookherjee, Advocate Arunabha Deb, Advocate Soumabho Ghose, Advocate Gourav Malhotra, Advocate Ashika Daga, Advocate Raunak Das Sharma, Advocate Sanchali Bhowmik, Advocate Yash Singhi, Advocate Ayush Mitruka, Advocate Karan Kaul.

Indian Performing Right Society Ltd: Advocate Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Advocate Ameet Datta, Advocate Susrea Mitra, Advocate Samina Khanum, Advocate Ojasvi Gupta, Advocate Kaustav Misra, Advocate Mukul Kochhar, Advocate Naimish Tewari, Advocate Ritesh Ganguly, Advocate Surajit Biswas, Advocate Awani Kumar Roy.

Saregama India Limited: Senior Advocate Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Avijit Dey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment