Copyright Vested With Saregama: Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Recreation Of Tamil Song "En Iniya Pon Nilave"

The Division Bench held that while composer Ilaiyaraaja retained copyright in the musical work component of the song, he did not own the copyright in the sound recording or the lyrical component of the song and therefore could not have assigned those rights to Vels Film International Limited for recreation and commercial exploitation.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by music composer Ilaiyaraaja challenging the order of a Single Judge restraining the use of the recreated version of the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the film Moodu Pani in the film Aghathiyaa. Saregama India Limited had instituted the suit alleging infringement of its copyright in the sound recording and underlying works of the song.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed: “The position that thus emerges is that (i) copyright in the sound recordings in Moodu Pani, which would include the sound recording in the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, vested in RCA, and never resided in Ilaiyaraaja, and (ii) RCA, by the Agreement dated 25 February 1980, transferred copyright in the said sound recordings to SIL.”

The Bench further observed: “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.”

Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appeared for Ilaiyaraaja. Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for Saregama India Limited.

Background

Saregama India Limited instituted a commercial suit alleging infringement of copyright in the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. According to Saregama, the producer of the film, Raja Cine Arts, had entered into an agreement in 1980 assigning copyright in the sound recordings and underlying works of the film to Saregama through its agent Saraswati Stores.

Saregama alleged that Vels Film International Limited and others had recreated the song for use in the upcoming film Aghathiyaa without obtaining any licence from it. A cease-and-desist notice was issued after Saregama came across promotional material announcing the release of the recreated version.

The producers of Aghathiyaa defended the recreation on the ground that they had obtained rights from Ilaiyaraaja, who, as composer of the original song, retained copyright in the musical work and had lawfully licensed adaptation rights under Section 14(a)(vi) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Ilaiyaraaja contended that as the composer and author of the musical work, he remained the first owner of copyright in the composition and that Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act protected his separate copyright even after incorporation of the work into a cinematograph film.

The Single Judge rejected these contentions and granted an injunction in favour of Saregama, following which Ilaiyaraaja preferred the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The Division Bench undertook an extensive examination of the scheme of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Sections 13, 14 and 17, and the distinction between copyright in a musical work, lyrics and sound recording.

The Court first held that the musical component of the disputed song constituted a “musical work” within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act and that Ilaiyaraaja, being the composer, was the author and first owner of copyright in the musical work by virtue of Sections 2(d)(ii) and 17.

However, the Bench clarified that Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright extended only to the musical component of the song and not to the lyrical component or the sound recording itself. The Court observed:

“This right was, however, necessarily limited to the musical component of the disputed song, i.e., the music therein, of which Ilaiyaraaja was the composer. It did not extend to the lyrical component of, or the sound recording in, the disputed song.”

The Court further held that copyright in the sound recording vested with the producer of the cinematograph film under Sections 2(d)(v), 2(f) and 17 of the Copyright Act. Since Raja Cine Arts was the producer of Moodu Pani, copyright in the sound recordings of the film vested with it and was subsequently assigned to Saregama under the agreement dated 25 February 1980.

The Bench reproduced clauses of the 1980 agreement and observed that the agreement unequivocally transferred gramophone recording rights and rights in the sound recordings of the film to Gramophone Company of India Limited, later rechristened as Saregama India Limited.

The Court rejected the argument that Ilaiyaraaja could assign rights in the sound recording and lyrics to Vels Film International Limited. Referring to the agreement executed by Ilaiyaraaja in 2023, the Court observed that the agreement wrongly represented him as the owner of copyright in the sound recording and underlying works of the song.

The Bench observed that “Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, have assigned, to VFIL, the lyrics underlying the disputed song,” while further adding that “Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, have assigned, to VFIL, the sound recordings in the film Moodu Pani either, which would include the sound recording relating to the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave.”

The Court also analysed Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act and clarified that while the producer’s copyright in the sound recording could not extinguish the separate copyright of Ilaiyaraaja in the musical work, that protection did not authorise exploitation of the sound recording itself.

The Bench held that Ilaiyaraaja was entitled to adapt or exploit the musical work component of the song, but could not exploit the sound recording or lyrics without authorisation from the copyright owner thereof.

The Court also disagreed with certain aspects of the reasoning of the Single Judge, particularly regarding the applicability of clauses (b) and (c) of the first proviso to Section 17. The Bench held that those clauses did not apply in the facts of the case because there was no pleading or material establishing the existence of a contract of service or commissioning arrangement attracting those provisions.

Nevertheless, the Division Bench agreed with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Single Judge and held that the recreated version infringed Saregama’s copyright in the sound recording.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court held that copyright in the sound recording of the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” vested with Saregama India Limited pursuant to an assignment from the producer of the film Moodu Pani, and that the recreated/adapted version used in the film Aghathiyaa infringed that copyright in the absence of a licence or permission from Saregama.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the injunction granted by the Single Judge restraining the use of the recreated song and dismissed the appeal filed by Ilaiyaraaja.

Cause Title: Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4556-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar with Advocates Naveen Nagarjuna, Ritik Raghuwanshi, Rishika Agarwal and Shrudula Murthy

Respondents: Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit and Rishabh Rao

Click here to read/download Judgment