Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 14728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ
MR ILAIYARAAJA – Appellant
Versus
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Swathi Sukumar, Naveen Nagarjuna, Ritik Raghuwanshi, Rishika Agarwal, Anshul Tulsyan
For the Respondents: Akhil Sibal, J Sai Deepak, Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Sucheta Roy, Shashwat Rakshit, Rishabh Rao, Sarah Haque
Under the Copyright Act, a music composer's rights to the sound recording of a song used in a cinematograph film are exhausted per Section 17 proviso (b), making the producer the first owner and preventing the composer from licensing the sound recording to third parties.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the interpretation of the Copyright Act, specifically Section 17 proviso (b), Section 14(1), and Section 2(f), regarding the ownership of sound recordings in a cinematograph film. The appellant, a music composer, sought a review of a judgment on the grounds that the court erroneously injuncted the use of a specific sound recording which was allegedly not the subject of controversy. The court found that the music composer's rights to make a record or cinematograph film are exhausted under the Act, and the producer remains the first owner of the copyright in the sound recording. The primary issue was whether the court erred in its finding that the music composer could license the copyright in the sound recording to a third party. The court reasoned that since the definition of "cinematograph film" includes sound recordings, and the composer has no copyright over the sound recording or lyrics under the statutory framework, they cannot assign such rights. Furthermore, the court held that "recreation" is not a distinct legal activity separate from "adaptation" under the Copyright Act. The review petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant seeks review of a judgment claiming an error regarding the injunction of a specific sound recording. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in the sound recording, and the composer's rights are exhausted. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. recreation of a sound recording is not a distinct legal activity from adaptation under the copyright act. (Para 10) |
| 4. a review petition is dismissed when no error apparent from the record is found in the original judgment. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 37043/2026 (
Exemption
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 256/2026
3. We have heard Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/review petitioner and Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
4. To a query from the Court as to the error apparent in the judgment dated 21 May 2026, of which review is sought, Ms. Sukumar has drawn our attention to paras 34 and 35 of our decision which read thus:
“34. Without alicence,orpermission,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,VFILhas infringedthe copyright ofSIL.
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,weareinagreement ontheultimateoutcome.”
5. Ms. Sukumar’s principal contention is that, in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court has effectively also injuncted the appellant from using the sound recording of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, which was never the subject matter of controversy. She submits that, by doing so, we have gone even beyond the findings of the learned Single Judge.
6. On reading the judgment of the learned Single Judge in juxtaposition with ours, we are unable to agree with Ms. Sukumar. The learned Single Judge has, in paras 27, 29 and 30 of her judgment dated 30 January 2025, observed and held as under:
“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 themusical 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 acinematograph film,theproducer of thefilmis theauthor, 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 themusic composer gets exhausted in terms of Section 17proviso (b)oftheCopyright 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 recordin
