Summary
In the case of Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraja, the High Court of Delhi granted interim relief in favour of the plaintiff and upheld section 17 (b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 stating that the producer was treated as the first owner of copyright in works embodied in a cinematograph film. Additionally, since the plaintiff had entered into assignment agreements with the producers, the plaintiff is said to hold the copyrights of the cinematographic works. An ad interim injunction was granted restraining licensing and exploitation of the impugned works on third party platforms.
Background:
Saregama India Limited (plaintiff) formerly known as “The Gramophone Company of India Limited” claimed to be the owner of various cinematographic works including sound recordings and musical and literary works by virtue of assignment agreements entered with the producers of such cinematographic films. The plaintiff alleged that Mr. Ilaiyaraja (defendant) had claimed rights in the musical works he created, composed, arranged and orchestrated for the impugned cinematographic films, by virtue of which he had licensed these copyrighted works to third party platforms such as Amazon music, JioSaavn and iTunes, and so on without authorization from the plaintiff.
Issues:
-
- Whether the producer’s original rights defeat the rights of the composer/ defendant?
- Whether the plaintiff in the present suit is said to be the owner of such copyrighted works?
- Whether the defendant can claim ownership over the musical works he created for the cinematographic films?
Arguments by the Plaintiff:
-
- The plaintiff claimed to own the copyrighted works by virtue of the assignment agreements entered into with the original producers of the cinematographic works.
- Plaintiff came across the unauthorized and infringing use of the copyrighted works on third party platforms and alleged that the defendant had been claiming ownership rights of the impugned copyrighted works.
- Plaintiff also claimed that this suit was not the first instance where the defendant had made such false representation and that the defendant had sent a frivolous legal notice claiming copyright over the musical works created, composed, arranged and orchestrated by him in the cinematographic films.
Analysis of the court:
The court interpreted section 17 (b) and (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 placing reliance on the case Indian Performing Right Society Ltd., vs. Eastern Indian Morion Pictures Association and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 820. It stated that the producer of cinematographic films would become the first owner of various copyrighted works embodied in such films. The court also emphasized that the composer does not own any copyright in the musical works he composed unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the composer and the producer of the cinematographic films.
Therefore, the court affirmed that the rights of a composer can be defeated by the producer of a cinematographic film. Furthermore, since the plaintiff had entered into assignment agreements with the producers being the first owner of the cinematographic film, the rights are said to be vested with the plaintiff and therefore the defendant was restrained from unauthorizedly licensing the copyrighted works to third party platforms.
The Court also determined that:
-
- The plaintiff has made a prima facie strong case in its favour, and as the plaintiff owned the copyrights by virtue of assignment agreements with the producers, the balance of convenience was with the plaintiff.
- The defendant was restrained from exploiting, using, or issuing licenses for the plaintiff’s copyrighted works.
Relevant Paragraphs from the order:
Paragraph 26: “…… In sum and substance, he submits that the rights of a music composer or a lyricist can be defeated by the producer of a cinematograph film in the manner laid down in provisos (b) & (c) of Section 17 of the Act.”
Paragraph 28: “…… it appears that an ex-parte ad interim injunction would be in order.”
Paragraph 30: “Defendant, its partners or proprietors, licensees, assigns,…… are restrained from exploiting/ using/ issuing licenses for the plaintiff’s Copyrighted Works i.e. the sound recordings and literary and musical works forming a part of the said Cinematograph Films……”
Case Citation: Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraja, CS(COMM) 143/2026, High Court of Delhi, interim relief granted on 13th February 2026. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72693698/ (last visited on 05 March 2026).
Authored by Ms. Aisha S Kamal and reviewed by Ms. Ashwini Arun