* 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,