Summary
In the case of Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar, the Bombay High Court examined whether a music author or composer retains any copyright after assigning rights to a producer under a contract. The court held that the producer was the lawful owner of the copyright in ten songs created by the defendant, and restrained the defendant from exploiting the works. The court ruled that once an assignment is made and accepted, the author cannot revoke or claim rights unless the contract is legally challenged and set aside.
Background
Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd., a film production company, entered into multiple contracts with Alok Kumar, a singer and music director, in December 2023. These included Music Director, Lyricist, Singer, and Talent Management Agreements for creating ten original songs. The contracts stated that the works were created as “commissioned works” and described the producer as the first owner of copyright. They also included express assignment clauses transferring all rights to the producer.
The relationship soured in 2025, when the defendant released the songs online under his own name, claiming 100 percent authorship. He alleged that the producer had delayed release, failed to pay dues, and had taken unfair advantage of him. The plaintiff denied these claims and sued for copyright infringement, seeking an injunction.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the author retained any rights in the songs after contractually assigning them to the producer.
- Whether the producer had lawfully acquired all rights under the agreements.
- Whether interim relief could be granted to prevent the defendant from exploiting the songs.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff (Producer – Rao and Sapru Films
- Submitted that the songs were created under contract as “works made for hire,” and all copyright had been assigned.
- Stated that payments were made as per contract and no refund or legal action was initiated by the defendant.
- Argued that the defendant’s release of the songs online amounted to copyright infringement.
- Placed on record signed agreements and emails showing the defendant’s acceptance of the producer’s rights.
Defendant (Author – Alok Kumar)
- Claimed to be the sole author and composer of the songs.
- Alleged that he was misled into signing the contracts, which were unfair and one-sided.
- Stated that the producer failed to release the songs on time and did not pay the full agreed amount.
- Asserted that he was within his rights to release the works under his name and retain authorship.
Court’s Analysis
The court examined the agreements and found that they clearly recorded the producer as the first owner of copyright and expressly assigned all rights in the songs to the plaintiff. The court said:
- The defendant had signed each page of the agreement and had not filed any action to set it aside.
- The songs were created on commission and constituted “works for hire” within the meaning of the Copyright Act.
- Even if the defendant was an author, the assignment transferred all rights, and he could not later revoke them unilaterally.
- The agreement excluded the operation of Section 19(4), which deals with lapsing of rights not exercised in one year.
- Emails from the defendant seeking a No Objection Certificate confirmed his understanding that rights belonged to the producer.
Based on the aforestated, the court found that the defendant’s conduct in releasing the songs and claiming authorship was inconsistent with the contracts and amounted to infringement.
Findings
The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing, communicating, or monetising the ten songs. It directed removal of the songs from all platforms and required the defendant to deliver all related recordings and materials to the plaintiff.
Relevant Paras
Para 15: “Prima facie, there is no question of the Defendant owning any rights in the Suit Works.”
Para 16: “Once the Defendant agreed to create the Suit Works under a contract, received consideration, and assigned rights, he cannot assert independent rights without challenging the contract.”
Para 20: “The mere fact that the agreements may appear one-sided or disadvantageous does not by itself establish fraud or misrepresentation.”
Case Citation
Rao and Sapru Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Alok Kumar, Commercial IP Suit No. 618 of 2025, IA No. 6542 of 2025, Bombay High Court, Order dated 5 December 2025.
Indian Kanoon Link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/134061757/ (Visited on 20 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
