Delhi High Court
Mr Ilaiyaraaja vs Saregama India Limited on 21 May, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10 February 2026
Pronounced on: 21 May 2026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
MR ILAIYARAAJA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Mr. Ritik
Raghuwanshi, Ms. Rishika Agarwal and Ms.
Shrudula Murthy, Advs.
versus
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr Adv. with
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr.
Shashwat Rakshit, Mr. Rishabh Rao, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
% JUDGMENT
21.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
A. The lis
1. A song is just a song, a thing of joy to lighten a dreary evening.
That is, till it becomes subject matter of copyright conflict in a court
of law, when it suddenly metamorphoses into much more.
2. Copyright vests, in a song, independently in the music, the
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
lyrics, and the sound recording. It is the intricate balance between
these copyrights, and their situs, with which we, in this appeal, are
concerned.
3. Ilaiyaraaja, a highly respected music maker from the South, is
in appeal before us, challenging judgment dated 30 January 2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 1021/2025 and
IA 2163/2025 in CS (Comm) 38/20251.
4. IA 1021/2025 was filed by the respondent Saregama India
Limited2, as the plaintiff in the suit. By order dated 16 January 2025,
ad interim relief was granted to SIL and against the defendants in the
suit, namely, Vels Film International Limited3 as Defendant 1, Divo
TV Private Limited4 as Defendant 2 and the appellant Ilaiyaraaja as
Defendant 3.
5. IA 2163/2025 was filed by Ilaiyaraaja for vacating the stay
granted by order dated 16 January 2025.
6. The impugned judgment allows IA 1021/2025 and dismisses IA
2163/2025.
7. Ilaiyaraaja, as we have noted, is in appeal.
B. Facts
1 "the Suit" hereinafter
2 "SIL" hereinafter
3 "VFIL" hereinafter
4 "DTPL" hereinafter
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
B.I The Challenge
8. SIL pleaded, in the suit, that VFIL, DTPL and Ilaiyaraaja had
infringed SIL’s copyright in the literary and musical work in the song
En Iniya Pon Nilave5 from the film Moodu Pani, which was slated for
release on 31 January 2025. The learned Single Judge has noted, in the
opening paragraph of the impugned judgment, that it was undisputed
that VFIL had used the lyrics and music composition of the disputed
song and had caused a fresh recording thereof, which was proposed to
be used in an upcoming cinematograph film Aghathiyaa. We may note
that it is the case of Ilaiyaraaja, as well as of VFIL before the learned
Single Judge, that VFIL had only adapted the song, as was permissible
under Section 14(a)(vi)6 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
B.II Rival stands before the learned Single Judge
9. Before the learned Single Judge, SIL asserted and averred as
under:
(i) Raja Cine Arts7, the producer of the film Moodu Pani,
had entered into an agreement with SIL on 25 February 1980
through SIL’s agent Saraswati Stores. Under this agreement, SIL5 “the Disputed Song” hereinafter
6 14. Meaning of copyright. – For the purposes of this Act, “copyright” means the exclusive right
subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a
work or any substantial part thereof, namely:–
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being a computer programme,–
*****
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
7 "RCA" hereinafter
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
became the owner of the sound recordings as well as the musical
and literary works contained in the film Moodu Pani, which
included the disputed song.
(ii) On 9 January 2025, SIL came across a teaser of an
upcoming cinema film Aghathiyaa, being produced by VFIL and
distributed by DTPL, on various social media platforms. These
platforms announced the imminent release of the song recordings
of Aghathiyaa on 10 January 2025, which included a recreation
of the disputed song. Immediately thereupon, SIL addressed a
notice to VFIL and DTPL on 10 January 2025, calling on them to
cease and desist from using any recreation of the disputed song.
VFIL responded on 11 January 2025, asserting that it had
obtained the license to adapt, record/recreate and synchronize the
disputed song from Ilaiyaraaja who, as the composer, was the
owner of copyright in the disputed song as well as in its
underlying works, which included its musical composition.
(iii) Section 178, read with Section 2(f)9 of the Copyright Act
8 17. First owner of copyright.–Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the
first owner of the copyright therein:
Provided that
*****
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a
painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable
consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any
agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a
contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b) does not apply, the
employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright therein;
*****
Provided that in case of any work incorporated in a cinematograph work, nothing contained in
clauses (b) and (c) shall affect the right of the author in the work referred to in clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of Section 13;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
made the producer of a cinematographic film the first owner of
copyright in all sound recordings, literary works and musical
works forming part of the film. The producer, thereby, was
conferred exclusive rights to assign copyright in the sound
recordings, literary works and musical works contained in the
film to a third party. In exercise of these rights, RCA had, under
agreement dated 25 February 1980, assigned the copyright in the
sound recordings, musical and literary works contained in the
film Moodu Pani to SIL.
(iv) Ilaiyaraaja, undoubtedly, was the composer of the
original disputed song and, therefore, the author of the musical
work embodied therein. However, as the song was made for, and
was a part of the cinematographic film Moodu Pani, RCA, by
operation of clause (b) of the first proviso to Section 17 of the
Copyright Act, became the first owner of copyright in the
musical and literary works contained in the film, which included
the disputed song. RCA had assigned copyright in the sound
recording of the disputed song to SIL and, thereby, SIL became
the subsequent owner of copyright in the literary and musical
works contained in the disputed song. Ilaiyaraaja ceased to
remain owner thereof, and ceased to have any copyright in the
disputed song.
(v) Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, have licensed the
9 (f) “cinematograph film” means any work of visual recording and includes a sound recording
accompanying such visual recording and “cinematograph” shall be construed as including any work produced
by any process analogous to cinematography including video films;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
copyright in the disputed song to VFIL, after the execution of the
agreement dated 25 February 1980. VFIL’s claim to copyright in
the disputed song, on the basis of the purported assignment
thereof by Ilaiyaraaja was, therefore, not sustainable.
(vi) Moreover, Ilaiyaraaja was not the author of the literary
work, i.e., the lyrics, contained in the disputed song.
(vii) VFIL was, therefore, by recreating the disputed song for
its film Aghathiyaa,
(viii) infringing the copyright of SIL in the disputed song.
(ix) The infringing song could not be treated as an
“adaptation” within the meaning of Section 14(a)(vi) of the
Copyright Act, as VFIL had not made any arrangement or
transcription as was required in order to make an “adaptation”
within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section
2(a)(iv)10 of the Copyright Act.
(x) Based on these assertions, SIL, in the suit, has sought a
decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in the
suit, i.e. VFIL, DTPL and Ilaiyaraaja, from dealing with the
disputed song or the musical composition contained therein in
any manner whatsoever. Additional claims for damages and costs
10 (a) “adaptation” means,–
*****
(iv) in relation to a musical work, any arrangement or transcription of the work;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
have also been made.
10. VFIL contended, before the learned Single Judge, per contra, as
under:
(i) As the composer of the disputed song, Ilaiyaraaja was its
author and, thereby, the owner of the underlying musical work
contained therein.
(ii) Under the license agreement dated 17 March 2023,
executed with Ilaiyaraaja, VFIL was a bona fide third party
licensee of the underlying musical and literary work contained
in the disputed song.
(iii) It was, therefore, in exercise of the rights conferred by
Section 14(a)(v) and (vi) of the Copyright Act that VFIL
created a new sound recording which was an adaptation of the
original disputed song. The ownership of the new sound
recording in the disputed song, therefore, enured to the benefit
of VFIL.
(iv) Even after the disputed song was incorporated in the film
Moodu Pani, Section 13(4)11 of the Copyright Act protected the
copyright of the original author in the musical/literary work
contained in the disputed song.
11 (4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a sound recording shall not affect the separate copyright
in any work in respect of which or a substantial part of which, the film, or as the case may be, the sound
recording is made.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 7 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(v) Ilaiyaraaja, therefore, continued to retain ownership over
the copyright in the disputed song and, therefore, had lawfully
licensed the copyright in the disputed song to VFIL on 17
March 2023.
(vi) Thereby, the right to make an adaptation of the disputed
song, available under Section 14(a)(vi) was also transferred to
VFIL.
(vii) In these circumstances, SIL’s reliance on Section 14 of
the Copyright Act was unfounded.
(viii) If SIL’s understanding of Section 17 were to be accepted,
it would render Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act otiose.
(ix) SIL had sought to contend that Ilaiyaraaja would be
entitled to exercise any copyright in respect of the disputed song
under Section 14(a) only after 2012 as the second proviso to
Section 17 had been added only in 2012. This construction was
not acceptable as it would render Section 13(4) of the Copyright
Act redundant.
(x) Besides, the second proviso to Section 17 of the
Copyright Act was only clarificatory in nature and did not
create any new right.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(xi) SIL had conceded that all rights under Section 14(a),
other than the right to make a cinematographic film sound
recording, were retained by the original author of the underlying
musical and literary works. The original author of the
underlying musical work in the disputed song was,
unquestionably, Ilaiyaraaja.
11. In support of its submissions, VFIL relied on the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in RDB and Co. (HUF) v.
Harpercollins Publishers India Pvt. Ltd.12, which was upheld by the
Division Bench in RDB and Co. (HUF) v. Harpercollins Publishers
India Pvt. Ltd13.
12. Ilaiyaraaja contended, before the learned Single Judge, as
under:
(i) As the composer of the disputed song, Ilaiyaraaja was the
owner of the musical work contained therein.
(ii) As a result, under Section 14(a)(vi), Ilaiyaraaja had
exclusive right to create, and to authorize the creation of, any
adaptation of the musical work contained in the disputed song.
(iii) The song which was slated to be used in the film
Aghathiyaa was only an adaptation of the musical work12 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3046
13 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7165FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
contained in the disputed song, of which the rights remained
with Ilaiyaraaja.
(iv) Under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of a
musical work is the first owner of the copyright therein. The
composer is, as defined in Section 2(d)(ii)14 of the Copyright
Act, the author of a musical work. As such, Ilaiyaraaja, as the
composer of the disputed song, was its author and the first
owner of copyright therein.
(v) This vested, with Ilaiyaraaja, all rights envisaged by
Section 14(a), which included the right to make an adaptation of
the musical work, under clause (vi) thereof.
(vi) SIL admitted that Ilaiyaraaja had adapted, in the song
which was slated to be released in the movie Aghathiyaa, the
musical work in the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave.
(vii) Ilaiyaraaja had not assigned the copyright in the musical
work to any person. He had only assigned a limited right to use
the musical work for synchronisation to RCA.
(viii) Section 13(4) protected the separate copyright of the
author of the composition contained in a musical work even
14 2. Interpretation.
*****
(d) "author" means,--
*****
(ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
after the musical work was included in a sound recording or in a
cinematographic film.
(ix) The reliance, by SIL, on clause (b) of the first proviso to
Section 17, was misplaced. The requisite pleadings, to make
out such a case, were absent in the plaint. The plaint did not
plead that the disputed song had been composed by Ilaiyaraaja
for valuable consideration at the instance of SIL or of RCA.
(x) Even otherwise, Section 17 did not envisage divesting of
the composer of the musical work of his right as author thereof,
on the musical work being permitted to be used in a
cinematographic film against valuable consideration. The right
of the composer to make an adaptation of the musical work
under Section 14(a)(vi) subsisted.
(xi) The judgments of the Supreme Court, on which SIL
relied, did not deal with the issue of whether a composer could
adapt a song under Section 14(a)(vi) after the song had been
synchronised in a cinematographic film.
(xii) The second proviso to Section 17 preserved intact
Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the musical work in the disputed song.
It clarified that the right was not defeated by SIL’s right in the
cinematographic film, if any. In fact, in its decision in Indian
Performing Rights Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd.15, the
15 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 944
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 11 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
High Court of Bombay had held that the second proviso to
Section 17 nullified clauses (b) and (c) of the first proviso.
(xiii) The first proviso to Section 17, and its various clauses,
only affected Section 13(1)16 of the Copyright Act and did not
affect the rights of Ilaiyaraaja, available under Section 14
thereof.
(xiv) As a result, RCA did not possess any copyright in the
musical work contained in the disputed song. The entire
copyright in the song, as well as in the underlying musical work
contained therein, continued to vest in Ilaiyaraaja. RCA could
not, therefore, have assigned any right in the musical work for
exploitation thereof to any other person.
C. The Impugned Judgment
13. The learned Single Judge has, after noting the rival contentions
before her, proceeded to analyse and reason various aspects involved,
thus:
“26. It is to be noted that in view of the provisions of Section
13(4) of the Copyright Act, which states categorically that
copyright in a cinematograph film or a record shall not affect the
separate copyright in any work in respect of which, the film or the
record, is made, the defendant no. 3 as the music composer, is
entitled to perform various acts as copyright owner in terms of16 13. Works in which copyright subsists. –
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright
shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say,–
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) sound recording.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 12 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
Section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, otherwise than as a part of a
cinematograph film.
27. The defendant no. 3, as music composer of the song in
question, in view of Section 17, proviso (b) of the Copyright Act,
has already exhausted his right under Section 14(1)(v) of the
Copyright Act. However, the defendant no. 3 is entitled to carry
out all the other acts in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the Copyright
Act, except to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect
of the musical work.
*****
29. Considering the definition of author, as given in Section
2(d) and provisions of Section 17 proviso (b) of the Copyright Act,
it is clear that in case of soundtrack/sound recording, which forms
part of a cinematograph film, the producer of the film is the author,
who shall be the first owner of the copyright therein, in the absence
of any agreement to the contrary. However, the right of the
composer of the music shall be safeguarded in terms of Section
13(4) and 14(1) of the Copyright Act, otherwise than as a part of
the cinematograph film. Meaning thereby, the rights of the music
composer, which is part of a cinematograph film, in terms of
Section 14(1) of the Copyright Act, shall include the right to carry
out all the acts, except to make any cinematograph film or a record
in respect of the work as envisaged under Section 14(1)(v), as the
said right of the music composer gets exhausted in terms of Section
17 proviso (b) of the Copyright Act.
30. It is also to be noted that the copyright in the song, which
vests with a producer of the film, includes the musical work, the
literary work, i.e., the lyrics, and the sound recording, which
includes, musical composition as well as lyrics. The defendant no.
3, as the music composer, has no copyright over the literary work,
i.e., the lyrics or the sound recording. Therefore, having no rights
over the lyrics of the song, there is no question of defendant no. 3
having any right to assign rights in the lyrics of the song to a third
party. In the present case, on the basis of the agreement with
defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 1 has used the lyrics and musical
composition of the song, in order to recreate the sound recording of
the said song. In the absence of any rights in the lyrics of the song,
the defendant no. 3 was not entitled to assign any right with respect
thereto. Thus, on this account also, the defendant no. 1 is not
entitled to claim any right on the basis of an agreement with the
defendant no. 3.
31. This Court cannot accept the contention of defendant no. 3,
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 13 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
i.e., the music composer, that in view of second proviso to Section
17, which has been inserted by way of amendment of the year
2012, he shall have right with effect from 2012. It is to be noted
that in terms of the second proviso to Section 17, which has been
inserted in the year 2012, in case of any work incorporated in a
cinematograph work, the same shall not affect the rights of the
author in the work. The second proviso to Section 17, as inserted
by the amendment of 2012, reads as under:
17. First owner of copyright.– Subject to the
provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first
owner of the copyright therein:
xxx xxx xxx
[Provided that in case of any work incorporated in a
cinematograph work, nothing contained in clauses (b) and (c)
shall affect the right of the author in the work referred to in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13.]
32. Thus, as per the second proviso of Section 17, which has
been inserted by way of an amendment of 2012, the right of a
music composer of a song which is part of a cinematograph film,
will not be affected. Accordingly, after the amendment of 2012,
only if the music composer enters into a specific agreement with
the producer of the film, that his rights shall be transferred to the
producer of the cinematograph film. However, the present case
pertains to a work before the 2012 amendment, and therefore, the
said amendment is not applicable to the present case. The said
amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be considered to
operate in a retrospective manner.
33. As regards the contention that the song in question is in the
nature of adaptation in terms of Section 14 of the Copyright Act,
the same is totally misplaced. ‘Adaptation’ has been defined in
Section 2(a) of the Copyright Act in relation to a musical work, any
arrangement or transcription of the work. In relation to the music
composition, ‘adaptation’ would connote arrangement of the
music. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the
defendants have used the lyrics and music composition of the song
in question and have caused a fresh recording of the same. In the
absence of any right over the lyrics of the song, defendant no. 3, as
the music composer, had no right to cause the use of the lyrics and
claim the same to be adaptation of his work, which was confined to
only music composition and not the literary work, i.e., the lyrics of
the song.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 14 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
34. It is undisputed that the defendant no. 3 is only the music
composer and not the lyricist of the song in question. Therefore,
the defendant no. 3 by no terms, can be considered as the author of
the lyrics of the song in question, which forms part of the sound
recording, in which the plaintiff has copyright in terms of
agreement with the producer of the film in question. Thus, the
defendant no. 3 had no authority to assign any right for use of the
lyrics of the song, on which he has no copyright.
*****
36. The judgment relied upon by the defendants in the case of
RDB (supra) is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the
facts and circumstances of the present case. The said judgment
related to copyright in a screenplay and not musical and literary
works incorporated in a sound recording/cinematograph film. The
defendant in the said case was making a novel out of a screenplay
of the original cinematograph film. The defendant was not making
a new cinematograph film out of the screenplay. Whereas, in the
present case, the defendant no.1 has made a new sound recording
using the music and lyrics of the original song, for a cinematograph
film.
*****
38. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, the plaintiff
has made out a prima facie case that as per the terms of the
plaintiff’s agreement with the producer of the cinematograph film
‘Moodu Pani’, the plaintiff is the owner of the sound recordings
and musical and literary works in the songs of the cinematograph
film ‘Moodu Pani’, including the song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’.
Accordingly, it is held that the defendant no. 1 cannot use the said
song, as recorded by it, without license from the plaintiff.”
14. One may itemize the findings of the learned Single Judge, thus:
(i) The rights available to a copyright holder under Sections
13 and 14 of the Copyright Act were not absolute, but were
subject to other provisions of the Copyright Act.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 15 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(ii) The composer of a musical work was unquestionably its
author for the purposes of copyright, under Section 2(d)(ii) of
the Copyright Act. Similarly, Section 2(d)(v)17 made the
producer of a cinematographic film the first owner of copyright
in the film as well as in all sound recordings contained in the
film.
(iii) Section 2(f) of the Copyright Act included, in the
definition of “cinematographic film”, the sound recording of the
film.
(iv) Section 17 made the author of any musical work the first
owner of copyright therein. However, this provision was
subject to other provisions of the Copyright Act. The
entitlements of a composer of a musical work as the first owner
of the copyright in the musical work, contained in Section 17
was also, therefore, subject to other provisions of the Copyright
Act.
(v) Clause (b) of the first proviso to Section 17 read with
Section 2(f) ordained that, if a cinematographic film was made
for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, then the
producer of the cinematographic film became the first owner of
the sound track associated with the cinematographic film. As
17 2. Interpretation.
*****
(d) "author" means,--
*****
(v) in relation to a cinematograph film or sound recording, the producer;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 16 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
such, the producer of a cinematographic film would be the first
owner of copyright in the sound track of the film, which would
include all musical works which were contained in the film.
(vi) Under the agreement dated 25 February 1980 executed
between RCA and SIL, the copyright in the musical and literary
works contained in the songs which were part of the
cinematographic film Moodu Pani came to vest in SIL. SIL,
thereby, became the owner of copyright therein.
(vii) In view of Section 13(4), therefore, Ilaiyaraaja, as the
composer of the original song En Iniya Pon Nilave, was entitled
to perform various acts as copyright owner otherwise than any
act which made it part of a copyright film. The right otherwise
available to Ilaiyaraaja under Section 14(a)(vi) of the Copyright
Act had been exhausted by him, in view of clause (b) of the first
proviso to Section 17.
(viii) Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, make a copyright film or
a record in respect of the musical work contained in the
disputed song, though he could exercise all other rights of a
copyright owner therein.
(ix) As a result, VFIL was also not entitled to adapt or
recreate the musical work contained in the disputed song. In
doing so, therefore, VFIL had infringed the copyright of SIL
therein.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 17 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
D. Rival Contentions
D.I Submissions of Ms. Swathi Sukumar
15. Ms. Sukumar advances the following submissions:
(i) The impugned judgment correctly acknowledges the
rights of Ilaiyaraaja in the musical work in the disputed song
but erroneously denies, to Ilaiyaraaja, the benefit of the second
proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, on the ground that
the proviso was inserted in 2012 and could not have
retrospective effect. In so holding, the learned Single Judge has
overlooked the fact that the cause of action for instituting the
suit arose in 2025.
(ii) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian
Performing Right Society Ltd v. Eastern Indian Motion
Pictures Assn18 was not applicable, as it was rendered in the
context of the unamended Copyright Act.
(iii) The decisions of the learned Single Judge and of the
Division Bench of this Court in RDB were wrongly
distinguished in the impugned judgment.
(iv) The main question that arose for consideration was,
therefore, whether Ilaiyaraaja’s exclusive right, under Section
14(a)(vi), to adapt the musical work contained in the disputed18 (1977) 2 SCC 820
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 18 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
song and, therefore, to assign the adapted work to another,
could be defeated by SIL’s alleged right in the cinematographic
film under Section 14(d)19.
(v) In view of the fact that Ilaiyaraaja was admittedly the
author of the musical work, and no assignment or agreement
had been executed by Ilaiyaraaja in respect thereof, Ilaiyaraaja
would be entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section
17, as the cause of action for instituting the suit arose in 2025,
which was when the alleged infringement took place.
(vi) The plaint proceeded on a presumption that, on
integration of the disputed song into the film Moodu Pani, there
was a deemed transfer of Ilaiyaraaja’s rights in the musical
work in the disputed song to RCA as the producer of the
cinematographic film. This was a fundamentally erroneous
presumption.
(vii) There was no pleading, by SIL, that the disputed song
had been created by Ilaiyaraaja for valuable consideration at the
instance of RCA, or that RCA had commissioned Ilaiyaraaja to
compose the song, as is contemplated by clause (b) of the first
19 14. Meaning of copyright.–For the purposes of this Act, “copyright” means the exclusive right
subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a
work or any substantial part thereof, namely:–
*****
(d) in the case of a cinematograph film,–
(i) to make a copy of the film, including--
(A) a photograph of any image forming part thereof; or
(B) storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means;
(ii) to sell or give on commercial rental or offer for sale or for such rental, any copy
of the film;
(iii) to communicate the film to the public;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 19 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, or that the song was
created during the course of employment of Ilaiyaraaja with
RCA as envisaged by clause (c) of the first proviso.
(viii) Under the Copyright Act, therefore, Ilaiyaraaja, as the
first owner of copyright in the musical work contained in the
disputed song, enjoyed all exclusive rights available to an
owner of copyright under Section 14(a) read with Section
2(d)(ii), which included the right to adapt the musical work.
Ilaiyaraaja enjoyed these rights to the exclusion of SIL’s right
under Section 14(d).
(ix) Under Section 14(a)(vi), Ilaiyaraaja had the exclusive
rights to make adaptation of the musical work contained in the
disputed song.
(x) The rights of the producer of the cinematographic film
Moodu Pani under Section 14(d) did not include the right to
adapt the underlying musical work which remained with
Ilaiyaraaja. As RCA did not possess any such right, SIL could
also not lay claim thereto.
(xi) The Copyright Act did not envisage deemed transfer of
all substantive rights available to an owner of copyright in a
musical work under Section 14(a), in favour of the producer of
a cinematographic film in which the musical work was
synchronized.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 20 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(xii) Moreover, Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright was also protected by
Section 13(4).
(xiii) In view of the second proviso to Section 17, Ilaiyaraaja’s
right in the musical work were not affected by clause (b) or
clause (c) of the first proviso thereto.
(xiv) The second proviso was only a beneficial clarification of
what was already contained in Section 13(4), 14(a) and 17 of
the Copyright Act.
(xv) Ilaiyaraaja had, therefore, in lawful exercise of the
copyright which vested in him in the musical work contained in
the disputed song, assigned the right to make an adaptation of
the disputed song to VFIL.
16. For all these reasons, Ms. Sukumar submits that the impugned
judgment is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
D.II Submissions of Mr. J Sai Deepak
17. Arguing per contra, on behalf of SIL, Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned
Senior Counsel, submits as under:
(i) The disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave was created by
Ilaiyaraaja at the instance of RCA. As a result, RCA was the first
owner of the copyright in the musical work under clause (b) of
the first proviso to Section 17.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 21 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(ii) Moreover, SIL’s ownership over the disputed song was
also statutorily presumed under Section 55(2)20 of the Copyright
Act, as SIL was reflected as the owner and publisher of the
disputed song in the inlay cards of the LPs21 on which the song of
the film Moodu Pani were released.
(iii) The Supreme Court had held, in IPRS, that the producer
of a cinematographic film could defeat the rights of the
composer/lyricist of the musical works contained in the film.
This principle was adopted and followed by the High Court of
Madras in Indian Record Manufacturing Co. v Agi Music Sdn
Bhd22.
(iv) It was clear that RCA had commissioned Ilaiyaraaja for
incorporation of the music in the sound track of the film Moodu
Pani, which included the disputed song En Iniya Pon Nilave.
Ilaiyaraaja had not disputed the fact that he had received valuable
consideration by way of recompense. By operation of clause (b)
of the first proviso to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, therefore,
RCA was the first owner of copyright in the disputed song.
(v) Ilaiyaraaja’s right under Section 14(a), therefore, stood
20 (2) Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, [or, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 13, a cinematograph film or sound recording, a name purporting to be that of the
author, or the publisher, as the case may be, of that work, appears] on copies of the work as published, or, in
the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or
appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless
the contrary is provided, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be.
21 Long Play records
22 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 626
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 22 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
exhausted on his contracting with RCA for incorporation of the
disputed song in the sound track of the cinematographic film
Moodu Pani in view of clause(b) of the first proviso to Section
17.
(vi) As such, Ilaiyaraaja’s stand that he had not been
commissioned to create the song by RCA was frivolous.
(vii) VFIL had made an entirely new recording of the song
which could not be treated as an “adaptation”.
(viii) Moreover, Ilaiyaraaja also licensed, in favour of VFIL,
the sound recording and literary work in the film Moodu Pani,
over which he had no rights.
(ix) Ilaiyaraaja could not seek to avail the benefit of the
second proviso to Section 17 or the third proviso to Section 18 of
the Copyright Act, as these were introduced only in 2012, and
were prospective in nature. They could not, therefore, affect or
impact the effect of the agreement dated 25 February 1980
between RCA and SIL.
E. Analysis
E.I The Issue in controversy
18. The core controversy centres around the situs of the copyright
in the disputed song.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 23 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
E.II Rival Stands
19. SIL contends that
(i) RCA was the “author” of the cinematograph film Moodu
Pani, as defined in Section 2(d)(v),
(ii) as the author of the cinematograph film, RCA was the
first owner of copyright in the cinematograph film,
(iii) “cinematograph film” is defined, in Section 2(f), as
including the sound recordings in the cinematograph film,
(iv) RCA was, thereby, also the first owner of copyright in
the sound recordings contained in the cinematograph film
Moodu Pani,
(v) SIL, as the assignee of the copyright in the
cinematograph film from RCA, was, therefore, the first owner
of copyright in the sound recordings contained therein, which
included the sound recording of the disputed song En Iniya Pon
Nilave,
(vi) the right to adapt the sound recording, therefore, vested in
SIL under Section 14(a)(v), and
(vii) Ilayaraaja had, therefore, infringed SIL’s copyright by
remaking/adapting the song, and in contracting with VFIL,
permitting the use of the adapted song in the film Agathiyaa.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 24 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
20. Additionally, SIL has also invoked clause (b) of the first
proviso to Section 17 to contend that Ilayaraaja’s copyright in the
disputed song, even if it existed, stood divested by operation of this
clause.
21. This line of argument has found favour with the learned Single
Judge, in the impugned judgment.
22. Ilayaraaja contends, per contra, that
(i) the disputed song constitutes a “musical work” as defined
in Section 2(p)23 of the Copyright Act,
(ii) as the composer of the musical work, Ilayaraaja is its
“author” by virtue of Section 2(d)(ii),
(iii) Ilayaraaja was, therefore, the first owner of copyright in
the musical work contained in the disputed song, under Section
17,
(iv) in the absence of any pleading to the effect that the
ingredients of clause (b) or (c) of the first proviso to Section 17
applied, this right was not divested,
(v) moreover, the right of Ilayaraaja as the first owner of
copyright in the musical work contained in the disputed song
23 (p) “musical work” means a work consisting of music and includes any graphical notation of such work
but does not include any words or any action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the
music;
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 25 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
also stood protected by Section 13(4) and the second proviso to
Section 17,
(vi) Ilayaraaja had, therefore, exclusive right to adapt the
musical work contained in the disputed song, under Section
14(a)(v), and
(vii) having thus lawfully adapted the musical work contained
in the disputed song, Ilayaraaja, therefore, lawfully allowed
VFIL to use the adapted musical work in the film Agathiyaa.
23. Apropos the applicability of the second proviso to Section 17,
whereas Ilayaraaja relies on the second proviso, SIL contends that it
does not apply, as it is only prospective from the date of its insertion
which took place in 2012.
24. The battle-lines stand, thus, clearly drawn and delineated.
E.III Our view
25. To our mind, the answer to the imbroglio is to be found in the
provisions of the Copyright Act, outside which it is hardly necessary
to peregrinate.
26. Section 2(p)
“Musical work” is defined, in Section 2(p) as a work consisting of
music, excluding lyrics. There is, therefore, statutorily, no distinction
between the “musical work” and the music which forms part thereof
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 26 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(the other part being the lyrics). As such, the musical component of
the disputed song, of which Ilayaraaja is undisputedly the composer, is
a musical work, in which, by virtue of Section 13(1)(a), copyright
vests.
27. Section 17
27.1 Section 17 makes the author of a work the first owner of
copyright in the work. Of course, Section 17 is expressly made subject
to other provisions of the Copyright Act.
27.2 The “author”, in the case of a musical work, is its composer, as
defined in Section 2(d)(ii).
27.3 As the composer of the disputed song, therefore, Ilaiyaraaja was
the author of the “musical work” forming part thereof, i.e., the musical
component of the disputed song. By operation of Section 17,
therefore, he was the first owner of copyright in the musical work in
the disputed song.
27.4 Clauses (b) and (c) of the first proviso to Section 17 do not, in
our opinion, apply, for the following reasons:
(i) Clause (b) does not apply either to sound recordings or to
musical works.
(ii) Clause (c) applies where the work is made in the course
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 27 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
of its author’s employment under a contract of service or
apprenticeship. It is nobody’s case that there was any “contract
of service” between RCA and Ilaiyaraaja. A “contract of
service”, legally, connotes the existence of a relationship of
master and servant. No such contract existed between RCA and
Ilaiyaraaja, nor is there any pleading by SIL to that effect.
28. Ilaiyaraaja’s right under Section 14(a)
28.1 As the first owner of copyright in the musical work in the
disputed song, Ilaiyaraaja possessed the exclusive right, under Section
14(a)(vi), to make any adaptation of the musical work. “Adaptation”,
as defined in Section 2(a)(iv) in the context of a musical work,
includes any arrangement or transcription of the musical work.
However, this right of adaptation was limited to the musical work, i.e.,
the musical component of the disputed song, as that was the extent of
Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the disputed song. The lyrics of the disputed
song were no man’s land, and Ilaiyaraaja would have no copyright
over the lyrics and, consequently, none of the rights envisaged under
Section 14(a) would be available to Ilaiyaraaja in so far as the lyrics
in the disputed song were concerned.
28.2 Section 14(a)(vi) also conferred, on Ilaiyaraaja, the exclusive
right to do, in relation to any adaptation of the musical work contained
in the disputed song, any of the acts specified in relation to the work
in sub-clauses (i) to (vi). Of these, Section 14(a)(iv) included the right
to make any cinematographic film or sound recording in respect of the
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 28 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
adapted musical work.
28.3 Ilaiyaraaja was, therefore, entitled to contract with any third
party for use, or for adaptation, of the musical work contained in the
disputed song, i.e, the musical component thereof. That right could
not, however, extend to doing anything involving the sound recording
of the disputed song, or the lyrics thereof. Copyright in the sound
recording of the disputed song would, by a conjoint application of
Section 17, 2(d) and 2(f), vest in the producer of the film of which the
song constituted part of the soundtrack, whereas copyright in the
lyrics of the disputed song would, by application of Section 2(d)(i) 24,
vest in the lyricist.
29. SIL’s copyright in the sound recording of the disputed song,
vis-Ã -vis Section 13(4)
29.1 SIL has sought to contend that, by virtue of the definition of
“cinematograph film” in Section 2(f), the sound recording
accompanying a cinematograph film was also included within the
definition of “cinematograph film”. There can be no cavil with this
contention.
29.2 Ergo, submits SIL, the sound recordings contained in the
various songs in the film Moodu Pani were also contained within the
ambit of the expression “cinematograph film”. There can be no cavil
with this proposition either.
24
(d) “author” means,–
(i) in relation to literary or dramatic work, the author of the work;”
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 29 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
29.3 Section 13(4), however stipulates that the copyright in a
cinematograph film or a sound recording would not affect the separate
copyright in any work in respect of which, or in respect of a
substantial part of which, the film, or the sound recording, is made.
29.4 The plea of infringement, raised by SIL, is predicated on the
copyright claimed to be held by it in the sound recording of the
disputed song, as a consequence of the copyright held by it in the
cinematograph film Moodu Pani. Inasmuch as (i) RCA was the
producer of the film Moodu Pani and was, therefore, the author of the
copyright in the cinematograph film, (ii) RCA was also, therefore, the
author of the sound recordings in the cinematograph film, which
included the sound recording of the disputed song En Iniya Pon
Nilave, and (iii) RCA had, therefore, competently assigned the
copyright in said sound recording to SIL under the Agreement dated
25 February 1980, SIL is correctly claiming copyright in the sound
recording in the disputed song.
29.5 By operation of Section 13(4), the copyright, if any, held by
RCA and, later, by SIL, in the sound recording relating to the musical
work contained in the disputed song cannot derogate from, or affect,
the separate copyright held by Ilaiyaraaja in the musical work
contained in the disputed song. Ilaiyaraaja’s copyright in the musical
work contained in the disputed song, therefore, continues to remain
protected and, consequently, his right to exploit the musical work in
the manner envisaged by Section 14(a)(iv) and 14(a)(v) read withFAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 30 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
14(a)(vi), also remains inviolate and sacrosanct.
29.6 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.
30. And it is there that the scales tilt.
31. Agreement dated 17 March 2023 between Ilaiyaraaja and VFIL
31.1 The Agreement dated 17 March 2023, between Ilaiyaraaja
(referred to as the “Licensor”) and VFIL (referred to as “the
Producer”) deserves, at this juncture, to be reproduced, in full, as
under:
“AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into at Chennai on 17th March 2023 by
and betweenIlaiyaraaja, Music Director, residing at 2-C, Murugesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600027, bearing PAN Card No.
AAEPR5028Hand GST Number: 33AAEPR5028H1ZT
(hereinafter known as “Licensor”, which expression shall unless it
be repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to mean
and include its successors and assigns) of One Part;
AND
VELS FILM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a company
incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 2013, having its
registered office at 521/2, Nandanam, Anna Salai, CHENNAI
600035 and holding PAN AAHCV1475C and GST No:
33AAHCV1475C1ZK represented by its Managing Director Dr.
Ishari K Ganesh (hereinafter referred to as the “PRODUCER”.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 31 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
which expression, unless repugnant to the context or meaning
thereof, is deemed to include its successors and assigns) of the
Second Part;
Licensor and Producer hereinafter may be referred to individually
as the “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.
WHEREAS
A. Licensor has represented to the Producer that the Licensor
is the owner and copyright holder of the Sound Recording titled
“En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the Tamil language film titled ‘Moodu
Pani’ (“Original Song”) composed by Ilayaraja and performed by K
J Yesudas and relying on the representation of the Licensor,
Producer has agreed to obtain license from the Producer to (i)
recreate the Sound Recording and Underlying Works of the
Original Song and its underlying works and this recreated version
and any of its derivatives shall hereinafter be referred to as “New
Sound Recording” and “New Underlying Works” respectively; and
to (ii) synchronize the New Sound Recording and the New
Underlying Works in a Tamil, Telugu & any other langauge
cinematograph film titled “Moodu Pani ” (“Film”) of the Producer
including without limitation to its clips, promos, trailers, etc.
B. The Parties have agreed to record the terms with respect to
recreation of the Original Song, synchronization of the New Sound
Recording and New Underlying Works in the Film and
communication and exploitation of the said New Sound Recording
and New Underlying Works in connection with the Film and/or on
a stand alone basis across all Modes, Media and Formats (defined
in Annexure I).
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AND IT IS HEREBY
AGREED by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1) LICENSE
1.1 Licensor hereby grants to Producer the either as a whole or
in parts and independently or otherwise the sole, exclusive,
irrevocable and unconditional license to the Original Song and its
underlying works (i) adapt and recreate the Original Song and its
underlying works and (ii) synchronize the New Sound Recording
and the New Underlying Works in the Film and including without
limitation to its clips, promos, trailers, etc. and to exploit the New
Sound Recording and the New Underlying Works, in any manner
Producer so chooses for the full period of copyright and thereafter
in perpetuity (“Term”) for the territory of the world (“Territory”).
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 32 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
1.2 The Producer shall in its sole discretion shall have the right
to engage any other party(ies) for the re-creation and/or adaptation
of the Original Song and its underlying works for the creation of
the New Content in the manner the Producer may deem fit.
1.3 It is agreed by the Licensor that the Producer shall be the
owner of the copyright of the New Sound Recording and the New
Works (as defined below) as per Section 14 of the Copyright Act,
1957 and Rules thereto (as amended from time to time) for the
Term and Territory. Producer shall have all the rights (including
copyright) in the New Sound Recording and the New Works fully
without any constraints, claims or overlaps from the Licensor, on
both master and publishing. Producer shall have the right to use the
New Sound Recording, New Underlying Works or parts thereof, as
a part of the Film/the Film’s soundtrack, or as a song video, or
audio or any other cinematograph film and the Producer may deal
with the same in the manner the Producer may deem fit.
1.4 Producer shall also have all the rights to use/exploit the
Works including by dubbing in any languages worldwide, as
deemed fit by the Producer. Producer shall also have the right to
exclusively license/assign the Works to other third parties without
procuring approval from the Licensor. Producer may exploit the
New Sound Recording on all modes, mediums, technology and
formats now in existence and commercial use or which may come
into existence and commercial use in the Territory during the
Term. Producer shall have the right to record, re-record, adapt,
create, re-create, translate, remake, re-perform, adapt, dub, re-mix,
sub-title, mash-up, sync, modify so as to make multiple,
cover(s)/reprise version/ derivatives of the Works including parts
and portions of sample usage from the Original Song, right to
sample usage of the Original Song as is, to feature as part of the
original soundtrack of the Film and independent of the same for
any exploitation ala carte or otherwise in any manner mode and
medium now and hereinafter known.
1.5 Exercise any and all rights as the owners of the Works as
available under the Copyright Act including but not limited to the
right, in perpetuity, to assign/license/sub-license the Works to third
party(ies) for the purpose of exploitation in any manner as shall be
deemed fit by the Producer.
1.6 Parties herein agree that Producer shall be the sole owner of
the entire copyright and publishing rights in the New Sound
Recording, new audio visual recordings and any additional/new
music or lyrics added to the New Sound Recording (“New
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 33 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
Underlying Works”) (jointly referred to as “Works”), as featuring
in Film or on a standalone basis for the Term and Territory with the
right to exploit the same in any manner mode or medium now or
hereinafter known, including the right to, sub-assign, license,
synchronize or deal with the same in any manner, as the Producer
so desires without any restrictions or limitations whatsoever. The
Publishing rights in these New Underlying Works featuring in the
New Sound Recording shall be solely owned by the Producer.
1.7 The Licensor expressly agrees and acknowledges that the
provision of Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended
or any other equivalent provision is specifically excluded and
expressly waived off.
2) CONSIDERATION
2.1 For the rights granted by the Licensor hereunder, the
Producer shall pay the Licensor a sum of Rs 5,40,000/- (Rupees
Five Lacs forty thousand only) including GST wide Cheque No:-
000916.,, Date: 17.03.2023, The Consideration paid shall be
subject to deduction of applicable tax at source under the Income
Tax Act, 1961.
2.2 The Consideration shall be paid [Please provide tranches]
and subject to receipt of invoice from the Licensor.
3) CREDITS-
The Licensor shall be given due credits for the Original
Song in the end credit roll of the Film as stated below:
En Iniya Pon Nilave ” Song
Performed by: KJ Yesudas
Original Lyrics: En Iniya Pon Nilave
Licensed Courtesy: Ilaiyaraaja
4) WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS
Both Parties represent that they have all the power and
authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform their
obligations hereunder; and that the execution, delivery and
performance of this Agreement will not contravene or result
in the breach of any contract or any provision of any
agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which
is bound and shall also not be in breach of their respective
constitutional documents.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 34 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
Licensor represents and warrants that it is fully authorized
and entitled to grant the rights specified in the Agreement
herein to Producer and owns, controls and/or administers all
necessary rights in the Original Song and the underlying
works thereof and that no consents or releases from any
person, or of any third person or entity are or will be
required. Producer’s use of Original Song in the manner
provided herein will not violate any rights of any kind or
nature whatsoever of any person, firm, corporation,
association, society or other entity.
Both Parties shall at all times comply with the provisions of
applicable law.
5) INDEMNITY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Both Parties shall fully indemnify and hold each other, as
harmless from and against any and all claims, demands,
causes of action, obligations, liability, loss, damage, cost
and/or expenses arising out of any breach of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, including the representations
and warranties under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the
aforesaid, the Licensor agrees to indemnify and hold the
Producer and its assigns indemnified and harmless against
any claims pertaining to the infringement of copyright or
rights of any party in connection with the Sound Recording
and Underlying Works licensed hereunder. The Licensor
shall solely be responsible towards resolving any claims
pertaining to the aforestated at its sole cost enable the
Producer to exploit the New Sound Recording and New
Underlying Works freely at all times.
6) CONFIDENTIALITY
Both Parties shall at all times keep the terms of this
Agreement confidential, save and except as required by
law. Any public announcement relating to the subject
matter of this Agreement by Licensor shall be made after
prior approval of Producer.
7) GOVERNING LAW & JURISDICTION
7.1 This Agreement shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of India.
7.2 The competent court at Chennai in India, shall have
jurisdiction over any issues arising out of this Agreement.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 35 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
8) GENERAL CONDITIONS
8.1 This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the respective successors and assigns of each
Party hereto. This Agreement, at the election of the
Producer shall inure to the benefit of its administrators,
successors, assigns, licenses, grantees, and affiliates, and
Licensor agrees that the Producer and any subsequent
assignee may freely assign and grant its rights hereunder, in
whole or in part, to any person, firm or Corporation.
8.2 A waiver by any Party of any term or condition of this
Agreement in a particular instance shall not be deemed or
construed to be a waiver for the future.
8.3 This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between
the Parties on this subject matter and cannot be modified
except by written instrument signed by the Parties hereto.
8.4 Any stamp duty, if applicable, shall be solely borne and
paid for by the Producer.
8.5 If any provision of this Agreement is invalid, unenforceable
or prohibited by law, this Agreement shall be considered
divisible as to such provision and such provision shall be
inoperative and shall not be part of the consideration
moving from any Party hereto to the others, and the
remainder of this Agreement shall be valid, binding and of
like effect as though such provision was not included
herein.
8.6 All notices, requests, consents and other communication
under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent
either by (i) recognized courier services at addresses of
respective Parties or (ii) E-mail, as mentioned hereinbelow.
Any Notice given in accordance with point (i) above, shall
be deemed to have been given three (3) days after having
been sent and any Notices given in accordance with point
(ii) above, shall be deemed to have been given immediately
on receipt of acknowledgement or delivery of email, as the
case may be
8.7 The relationship between the Parties is that of independent
contractors. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall
constitute or be deemed to constitute a partnership. joint
venture, agency or employment relationship between the
Parties. This Agreement is on a ‘principal to principal’ basis
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 36 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
between the Parties. Neither Licensor nor Producer shall
describe itself as an agent or representative of the other, or
make any representations or give any warranties/
assurances to a person which may require such Party to
undertake or be liable, whether directly or indirectly, for
any obligation and or responsibility to a Person, or enter
into contracts on behalf of the other Party
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above written.
Ilaiyaraaja Vels Film International Limited
Sd/- Sd/-
Music Director/Proprietor Managing Director"
31.2 This Agreement poses a variety of issues. As is apparent from
its covenants, Ilaiyaraaja represented himself, to VFIL, as the
copyright holder in the sound recording of the disputed song, as well
as its underlying works. The Agreement purports to assign, to VFIL,
the copyright in the sound recording of the disputed song, as well as
its underlying works.
31.3 However, Ilaiyaraaja was not the owner of copyright in the
sound recording, or the lyrics underlying the disputed song. His
copyright was limited to the musical work, the very definition of
which, in Section 2(p), excludes the lyrical component of the song.
Ilaiyaraaja could not, therefore, have assigned, to VFIL, the lyrics
underlying the disputed song.
31.4 Equally, Section 17 makes the author of a work the first owner
of copyright therein. For a cinematograph film, the author is, per
definition in Section 2(d)(v), the producer of the film. As such, RCA
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 37 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
was the first owner of the copyright in the film Moodu Pani.
“Cinematograph film” is defined, in Section 2(f), as including the
sound recording accompanying the visual recording of the film. RCA
was also, therefore, the first owner of copyright in the sound
recordings contained in the film Moodu Pani. 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.
32. Agreement dated 25 February 1980 between Saraswathi Stores
(SIL’s agent) and RCA
32.1 The following covenants of this agreement (which refer to
Saraswathi Stores as “the Company” and RCA as “the producer”)
merit reproduction:
“2. The Producer shall at the Producer’s own expense promptly
after the completion of the Producer’s films make available solely
and exclusively to the Company for the purposes of the Agreement
the sound-track or a recorded tape thereof.
*****
4 (A) The Gramophone Company of India limited shall be the
owner of the original plate within the meanings of the Copyright
Act 1957 and any extensions or modifications thereof of any
performance from which are made any records manufactured in
pursuance of this Agreement recorded or re-recorded by the
Company pursuant to Clause 2 or 3 (A) (a) or 3 (A) hereof.
(B) The Producer hereby assigns and transfers and agrees to assign
and transfer to The Gramophone Company of India Limited
absolutely and beneficially for the world.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 38 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(i) the gramophone recording rights in all works the
performances of which are made available to the Company
under the terms of this Agreement and
(ii) the right to make or authorise the making of any
record embodying the recordings in any part of the said
soundtrack(s) associated with the Producer’s films.
The Producer undertakes to execute or obtain the execution of such
further assignments or assurances as The Gramophone Company of
India Limited may from time to time require.
*****
5. The Producer hereby assures the company: –
(a) That the copyright and other rights in the works as
mentioned in Clause 4 are or will be the Producer’s free and
unencumbered property immediately prior to their
assignment or transfer to The Gramophone Company of
India Limited.
*****
7.(A) Subject as hereinafter mentioned the Producer shall be
entitled in respect of all records of contract recordings made
available hereunder by the Producer and sold by the Company or
by any individual firm company or corporation or other person
authorised by The Gramophone Company of India Limited to a
royalty on nett sales calculated on the retail price in the country of
manufacture as follows:
(a) On a single 45-RPM record reproducing:
(i) On both sides contract recordings alone
per record.
ii) On both sides contract recordings together
with other recordings a proportion of per record according
to the number of other recordings. In the case of such a
gramophone record only one side of which reproduces a
contract recording as aforesaid the amount of royalty shall
be one-half of that set out above.
A single 46-RPM record shall mean as equivalent of a double sided
ten inch 78-RPM record manufactured to play at a speed of 78-
revolutions per minute.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 39 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
(b) In the case of any other record the same shall be
deemed to consist of section each section comprising one
side of a single 45-RPM gramophone record or the
equivalent thereof and royalty shall be calculated as above
on each such section reproducing a contract recording. For
this purpose the retail price of such other record shall be
divided by the total number of sections. Where in the
opinion of the Company it is impracticable to divide into
sections a record containing other recordings in addition to
the contract recordings each recording shall be timed in
relation to the total playing time of the record and the
royalty shall be calculated upon the same proportion of the
retail price.
(c) Royalty payable in respect of a tape record shall be
calculated and payable on the retail price as in the opinion
of the Company is or would be appropriate for a disc record
or records containing the same material and for the purpose
of this Clause 7 sales of tape records shall be calculated
separately from sales of disc records.
(d) Royalty as above shall be payable during currency
of this Agreement and thereafter for 25 years.
(e) Records manufactured for the Company outside
India on a custom pressing basis but intended by the
Company primarily for sale in India shall for the purpose of
this Clause 7 be considered as having been manufactured in
India; similarly records so manufactured for any licensee of
The Gramophone Company of India Limited outside the
country in which such licensee shall have its main operating
office but primarily intended for sale in such country shall
be considered as having been manufactured in such
country.
(B) In addition to the royalty on contract recordings provided
for in Clause 7 (A) hereof the Company shall also pay to the
Producer a copyright royalty of 5% per record in respect of sales of
records containing performances of contract works. The provisions
Clause 7 (A) shall apply to the calculation of the copyright royalty
mutatis mutandis and in particular “contract works” shall be
deemed to be inserted instead of the words “contract recordings”
where such words appear.”
32.2 Thus, by this Agreement, copyright in the sound recordings
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 40 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
contained in the cinematograph film Moodu Pani was transferred to
Gramophone Co. of India Ltd – which was later rechristened as SIL –
for consideration in the form of a stipulated royalty.
33. 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.
SIL, thereby, became the owner of copyright in the sound recordings
contained in the film Moodu Pani, which included the sound
recording of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave.
34. 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.
35. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in passing the
impugned order of injunction. Though our reasoning differs, on some
minor aspects, with that of the learned Single Judge, we are in
agreement on the ultimate outcome.
F. Conclusion
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 41 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
36. We, therefore, concur with the decision of the learned Single
Judge.
37. The appeal is dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 21, 2026
dsn/AR
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
Signature Not Verified Page 42 of 42
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:21.05.2026
11:02:35
