Supreme Court Scrutinizes Ilaiyaraaja-Sony Copyright Battle Over Jurisdictional Tangle

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has once again stepped into the protracted and complex copyright dispute between legendary music composer Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and global music giant Sony Music Entertainment. A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has issued a notice to Ilaiyaraaja and his company, Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd (IMMA), on a transfer petition filed by Sony. The petition seeks to move a fresh lawsuit initiated by the composer in the Madras High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a related suit filed by Sony is already pending.

The Court’s intervention highlights a critical procedural battle over the appropriate forum for adjudicating the substantive question of ownership over a vast and iconic catalogue of musical works. While declining to grant an immediate stay on the Madras High Court proceedings, the Supreme Court has sought a response from Ilaiyaraaja's firm, with the matter set to be heard after six weeks. This development marks the second time in months that the question of jurisdiction in this high-stakes intellectual property dispute has reached the nation's apex court.

Background: A Web of Litigation Across Two High Courts

The legal conflict between the celebrated composer and the music label is multifaceted, involving multiple lawsuits and appeals that trace back years. Understanding the current Supreme Court proceeding requires untangling this intricate litigation history.

Sony's Suit in the Bombay High Court (2022): The first move in the current phase of the dispute was made by Sony Music Entertainment in 2022. The company filed a copyright infringement suit in the Bombay High Court against Ilaiyaraaja's management firm, IMMA. Sony claims that it is the rightful owner of the copyrights to a catalogue of 536 title albums, having acquired them through a series of transactions. Specifically, Sony alleges that IMMA is infringing on at least 228 of these titles by streaming them without authorization.

Sony's claim to these rights stems from a Catalogue Acquisition Agreement in February 2020. The rights were originally held by film producers, who transferred them to Echo Recording Company Pvt Ltd. Echo subsequently transferred them to Oriental Records USA, from whom Sony acquired the catalogue. In its Bombay suit, Sony sought ad-interim reliefs to restrain Ilaiyaraaja's company from commercially exploiting the works and to assert its right to receive royalties.

Ilaiyaraaja’s Counter-Arguments and Prior History: In its defence before the Bombay High Court, IMMA contended that Sony was manufacturing a "false case of urgency." It argued that the works in question had been distributed by a third party, 'Trend Loud Digital', on behalf of the composer since 2015, a fact Sony was allegedly aware of during failed negotiations for Ilaiyaraaja's entire repertoire in late 2021.

The history with Echo Recording is also central. Ilaiyaraaja had previously sued Echo in the Madras High Court over the rights to 310 songs. However, in a significant ruling on June 4, 2019, the Madras High Court dismissed Ilaiyaraaja's suit, holding that Echo was the legal owner of the sound recordings and was entitled to exploit them. It was after this judgment that Sony acquired the catalogue. Ilaiyaraaja is reportedly appealing this 2019 decision.

Ilaiyaraaja’s Fresh Suit in the Madras High Court (2023): More recently, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja filed a new plea in the Madras High Court in September (some reports erroneously state 2025). In this suit, he seeks a declaration that Sony holds no rights, title, or interest in his musical works and an injunction to restrain the company from broadcasting or telecasting them. In a notable interim order on September 26, the Madras High Court directed Sony to submit detailed accounts of the revenue generated daily from the exploitation of the composer's songs.

The Jurisdictional Tug-of-War at the Supreme Court

The parallel proceedings have led to a legal battle focused on jurisdiction, with both parties attempting to have the consolidated matter heard in their preferred court.

• Ilaiyaraaja’s Failed Transfer Attempt (July 2023): Earlier this year, Ilaiyaraaja’s firm petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer Sony’s 2022 infringement suit from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court. On July 28, a bench headed by CJI Gavai dismissed this plea, allowing the Bombay suit to proceed.

• Sony’s Current Transfer Petition: Following the dismissal of Ilaiyaraaja’s petition, Sony has now approached the Supreme Court with a transfer petition of its own. Represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sony argues that the new suit filed by Ilaiyaraaja in Madras deals with common subject matter and overlapping issues as its own pre-existing suit in Bombay.

“He is a music composer and I purchased the rights of his music. Now a fresh lawsuit has been filed in the Madras High Court,” Singhvi submitted to the bench.

Sony’s plea contends that since it was the first to file a suit in 2022, the interests of justice, judicial efficiency, and the avoidance of conflicting rulings necessitate transferring the subsequent Madras suit to the Bombay High Court for a consolidated hearing. Singhvi stressed that Ilaiyaraaja’s firm was attempting to "re-litigate issues already settled in Bombay."

When pressed for a stay on the Madras proceedings, citing their ex-parte nature, CJI Gavai advised Singhvi, “Make your prayer to the court and you are already represented there,” thereby directing Sony to seek relief from the Madras High Court itself for the time being.

Legal Analysis: Multiplicity of Proceedings vs. Cause of Action

The Supreme Court's decision on Sony's transfer petition will pivot on established principles under the Code of Civil Procedure governing the transfer of suits. The core legal question is whether the two lawsuits are so interconnected that they ought to be heard together to prevent contradictory judgments and ensure judicial economy.

Sony's argument rests on the premise that the "subject matter in both suits and the issues raised are common." They posit that the central dispute in both forums is the ownership of copyright in the same catalogue of works, acquired through the same chain of title from Echo Recording.

However, the counter-argument, which was also articulated by Mr. Singhvi in a seemingly contradictory statement, is that the "cause of action is different" and the Madras suit pertains to "different films." This introduces a nuance that the Supreme Court will have to examine closely. If the Madras suit involves a distinct set of works not covered by the Bombay suit, or raises different legal questions (e.g., focusing on the composer's underlying moral rights or rights in the musical compositions versus the sound recordings), the case for transfer becomes less straightforward.

Legal experts note that courts are generally inclined to consolidate litigation to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The fact that the Supreme Court previously rejected Ilaiyaraaja's plea to move the Bombay case to Madras could weigh in Sony's favour, suggesting a preliminary inclination by the apex court to recognize Bombay as the primary forum, given that Sony's suit was filed first.

The outcome will have significant implications for how complex, multi-jurisdictional IP disputes are managed in India. A decision to transfer would reinforce the "first-to-file" principle and the importance of consolidating related claims. A refusal could signal that distinct causes of action, even if related, can proceed in parallel, placing a greater burden on the parties to manage litigation across different states. For now, the legal community watches keenly as two titans of the Indian music industry await the Supreme Court's direction on where their complex copyright symphony will be conducted.