The producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the accompanying sound recording. While a composer retains separate copyright in the underlying musical work, this does not grant them rights over the sound recording or lyrics, preventing them from authorizing recreation of the audio track.

JUDGMENT :

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 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) 38/2025[“the Suit” hereinafter.]

4. IA 1021/2025 was filed by the respondent Saregama India Limited[“SIL” hereinafter], 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 Limited[“VFIL” hereinafter] as Defendant 1, Divo TV Private Limited[“DTPL” hereinafter] 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

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 Nilave[“the Disputed Song” hereinafter] 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)[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;]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 Arts[“RCA” hereinafter], 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, SIL 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