M/S MRT MUSIC vs PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 55(2) - Presumption of ownership - Where the name of the author or publisher appears on published copies of the work, such person is presumed to be the author or publisher unless the contrary is proved - Ownership established via valid assignment deeds is prima facie sustainable. (Paras 90-93)

(B) Copyright Act, 1957 - Fair Use and De Minimis - The application of the 'de minimis' or fair use standard is determined by qualitative aspects rather than quantitative measures - Use of copyrighted material is not considered 'de minimis' if the selection is purposeful, intentional, and used to further the plot or script of a film, regardless of the short duration of use. (Paras 98-104)

(C) Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 33 - Registration of Copyright Society - Statutory provisions regulating the management of copyright societies do not prohibit individual copyright owners or assignees from granting licenses for their own works in their individual capacity. (Paras 109-110)

(D) Copyright Act, 1957 - Definition of ‘musical work’ - Following the 1994 amendment, graphical representation or reduction to writing is not a mandatory requirement for a work to be protected as a musical work. (Paras 119-121) (E) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 20(c) - Territorial Jurisdiction - The mere availability and accessibility of content on OTT platforms to users within a particular jurisdiction is sufficient to establish that the cause of action has accrued within that territory, conferring jurisdiction upon the court. (Paras 130-131)

Facts of the case:
An entity claiming copyright ownership of two songs filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against film producers and an OTT platform for the unauthorized use of the songs in a movie. The songs were used for short durations (7 and 31 seconds) to specifically advance the plot. The defendants challenged the plaintiff's ownership, the court's jurisdiction, and argued that the use was 'de minimis'. They further contended that the plaintiff could not grant licenses without being a registered copyright society.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was the exclusive copyright owner through assignment. The use of the songs was purposeful and not incidental, thus failing the 'de minimis' test. Individual owners are entitled to license their works without copyright society registration. Territorial jurisdiction was established via the accessibility of the film on the OTT platform in the forum state. The defendants were found to have willfully disobeyed a previous court order regarding the deposit of security.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff held copyright ownership; whether the usage fell under fair use or de minimis; whether registration as a copyright society is mandatory for licensing; whether graphical representation is required for musical works; whether the court possessed territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction; whether the defendants committed willful disobedience of court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that qualitative intent outweighs quantitative duration in determining infringement; a purposeful creative choice to use copyrighted work to advance a plot is not 'de minimis'. It affirmed that Section 33 does not curtail an owner's individual right to grant licenses. It further held that OTT content accessibility constitutes a communication to the public within the jurisdiction where the content is viewed.

Result: Application for interim injunction allowed; application for return of plaint dismissed; application for vacation of injunction dismissed; amount of ₹20,00,000 released to plaintiff in lieu of injunction; exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000 imposed on defendants for willful disobedience.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Copyright infringement suit regarding unlicensed use of songs in a film. (Para 2 , 9 )

2. Dispute over copyright ownership, fair use, and the right of an individual owner to license works. (Para 18 , 48 )

3. Defendants' use of songs was intentional and not de minimis; the Plaintiff has prima facie copyright ownership. (Para 98 , 100 , 104 , 110 , 124 )

4. An individual copyright owner can grant licenses in their own work without being a registered copyright society. (Para 110 )

5. Injunction denied, deposited license fee released to Plaintiff; contempt found, exemplary costs imposed. (Para 149 , 150 )

6. Is an individual copyright owner required to be a registered copyright society to license their own works?

No, Section 33 of the Copyright Act does not prohibit individual owners from licensing their own works; it regulates societies that administer others' works. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 )

7. Does the principle of de minimis non curat lex apply to intentional and purposeful use of a copyrighted work?

The principle is determined qualitatively, not just by duration. Intentional use to further a plot is not de minimis and requires a license. (Para 99 , 100 , 101 , 103 , 104 )

8. Can a court exercise territorial jurisdiction in a copyright suit based solely on the accessibility of an infringing film on an OTT platform within its jurisdiction?

Yes, mere availability of content on an OTT platform within a court's jurisdiction is sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction for a copyright infringement claim. (Para 130 , 131 )

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2026 + CS(COMM) 680/2024 M/S MRT MUSIC .....Plaintiff Versus PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Asavari Jain, Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan, Mr. Shivansh Tiwari, Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Ms. Shrudula Murthy, Ms. Rishika Aggarwal and Ms. Prathibha, Advocates.

For the Defendants : Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Samrat S. Kang and Mr. Vishnu Gambhir, Advocates for D-

1 and D-2. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. 36229/2024, I.A. 40421/2024, I.A. 40876/2024 & I.A. 22870/2025

1. By way of this common Judgment the following Applications are decided:

i. IA No. 36229/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”)

seeking interim injunction against the Defendants;

ii. IA No. 40421/2024 filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC for return of Plaint;

iii. IA No. 40876/2024 filed on behalf of Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with respect to wilful disobedience of the Order dated 12.08.2024 and iv. IA No. 22870/2025 filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC for vacation of ex parte ad-

interim injunction granted vide Order dated 12.08.2024.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit, inter alia, seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining from infringement of copyright and seeking damages and rendition of accounts of profits. The Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants are illegally and unauthorizedly exploiting the audio-visual recordings, sound recordings and underlying literary and musical works of two songs namely “Nyaya Ellide” and “Omme Ninnanu” (“Original Works”) in the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2’s film, “Bachelor Party” (“Impugned Film”).

3. The Plaintiff is a partnership firm duly constituted under the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932 and is engaged in the business of acquisition and / or production, marketing, distribution and sale of sound recordings and cinematograph films including audio visual recording of songs and underlying literary works and musical works embodied therein via various means such as sale of recorded audio CDs, VCDs, DVDs and sub-licensing / distribution of digital rights, audio rights, broadcasting rights via satellite video and television etc. and also publishing, mechanical and synchronization rights in the copyright in works therein.

4. The Plaintiff has a repertoire of more than 15000 sound recordings and 2000 music videos over which it has all rights including the copyright (“Copyrighted Works”) under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“Copyright Act”). The Plaintiff claims to have acquired the ownership of Copyrighted Works by paying valuable consideration to acquire the ownership from the producers or the owners thereof and / or directly from the authors, i.e., lyricists and composers through written Assignment Deeds. The Plaintiff also takes the initiative and responsibility to commission the making of audio-visual recordings, cinematograph films, sound recordings and underlying literary works, musical works and dramatic works and the performances embodied therein for valuable consideration thereby being the producer and the first owner of copyright therein.

5. The Plaintiff claims that being the owner of the Copyrighted Works, the Plaintiff has the exclusive rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act to, inter alia, reproduce, store, post, issue copies, digitally transmit, communicate to the public, publicly perform, synchronize, make any sound recording or cinematograph film in respect of the Copyrighted Works. The Plaintiff also has the exclusive right to adapt,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
M/S MRT MUSIC – Appellant
Versus
PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-680/2024

Individual copyright owners can grant licenses independently of copyright societies. Short-duration use of copyrighted work is not 'de minimis' if it is a purposeful creative choice to advance a plot. Territorial jurisdiction is established by the accessibility of OTT content within the forum state.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is an individual copyright owner required to be a registered copyright society to license their own works?

7. Does the principle of de minimis non curat lex apply to intentional and purposeful use of a copyrighted work?

8. Can a court exercise territorial jurisdiction in a copyright suit based solely on the accessibility of an infringing film on an OTT platform within its jurisdiction?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITejas Karia, JM/S MRT MUSIC – AppellantVersusPARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – RespondentCS(COMM)-680/2024

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is an individual copyright owner required to be a registered copyright society to license their own works?

7. Does the principle of de minimis non curat lex apply to intentional and purposeful use of a copyrighted work?

8. Can a court exercise territorial jurisdiction in a copyright suit based solely on the accessibility of an infringing film on an OTT platform within its jurisdiction?

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
M/S MRT MUSIC – Appellant
Versus
PARAMVAH STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-680/2024