For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Maria Therese Syriac, a law student at NUALS Kochi and verified by Sunil Jose, Managing Attorney, Suns Legal.

Saregama India Limited v. Vels Film International Limited (CS(COMM) 38/2025)

In 1980, the melodious Tamil song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ captivated audiences in the film ‘Moodu Pani’. It is notable for being Ilaiyaraaja’s 100th soundtrack. ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ was the song with the longest prelude and interlude using a guitar. Four decades later, this same song sparked a significant legal battle, questioning the line between artistic creation and copyright protection in India’s film industry. The case deals with who truly owns the right to recreate beloved film songs from the past.

The Delhi High Court recently examined this question in Saregama India Limited v. Vels Film International Limited (CS(COMM) 38/2025), leading to questions about the extent of rights held by music composers versus film producers. Let us understand whether this is a case of legitimate musical adaptation or copyright infringement under India’s copyright law regime. 

The Case 

The case concerns Saregama’s claim over the song from the 1980 film. The dispute arose when Yuvan Shankar Raja, under Vels Film International, recreated the iconic song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’ for their new film ‘Aghathiyaa’ without obtaining permission from Saregama. Saregama India Limited filed a suit against Vels Film International Limited and others, seeking to prevent the use of their copyrighted song in the film ‘Aghathiyaa’. The disputed song was initially composed for the 1980 film ‘Moodu Pani’, and Saregama acquired the rights through an agreement with the film’s producer, Raja Cine Arts, in February 1980. When Saregama discovered that Vels had recreated the song without their permission, they immediately sent a cease-and-desist notice. Despite this, Vels proceeded with publishing the song, claiming they had obtained rights from the original music composer, Ilaiyaraaja. While Saregama claimed ownership through the producer’s assignment, the music composer (Defendant No. 3) asserted his continuing rights under the Copyright Act.

Legal Issues 

The primary issue centered on determining the rightful owner of the copyright in the song. The case questioned the relationship between various provisions of the Copyright Act, particularly Sections 13(4), 14(1)(a), and 17, and the impact of the 2012 amendments to the Act.

Plaintiff’s Contentions 

Saregama argued that, as per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer of a cinematograph film is the first owner of the copyright in all works incorporated in the film, including sound recordings and musical works. They contended that, having acquired these rights through a valid agreement with the producer, they owned all rights to the song. The plaintiff stated that the music composer had no rights over the lyrics and could not authorize their use by third parties. They also argued that the concept of ‘adaptation’ claimed by the defendants was misplaced, as they had simply recreated the original song without any substantial modification.

Defendant’s Arguments

The defendants primarily contended that under Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, the music composer retains separate copyright in his musical work even after its incorporation in a film. They argued that the 2012 amendments to Section 17 protected the composer’s rights and that these amendments should apply retrospectively. The music composer claimed that he had created the music independently before it was incorporated into the film and, therefore, retained adaptation rights under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Vels Film International maintained they had obtained valid rights through a license agreement with the composer.

The Court’s Analysis 

The Court analyzed the relationship between Sections 13, 14, and 17 of the Act. It referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977 AIR 1443), which established that while film producers acquire certain rights, composers retain rights to perform their works independently of the film. The Court found that while music composers retain certain rights under Section 14(1)(a), the right to make cinematograph films or sound recordings of the work was exhausted under Section 17(b). This was particularly relevant for works created before the 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act. Notably, the Court addressed the retrospective application of the 2012 amendments, holding that they were prospective and couldn’t apply to the 1980 agreement. This finding was crucial in determining the scope of rights available to the music composer.

The Verdict and Impact 

The Court issued a balanced ruling that protected both parties’ interests. While establishing Saregama’s prima facie rights over the song, it allowed Vels to use the recreated version subject to a deposit of Rs. 30 Lakhs with the Court. The Court held that for pre-2012 works, film producers (and their assignees) hold primary rights over songs incorporated in their films, including the right to authorize sound recordings. Music composers retain certain rights under Section 14(1)(a) but cannot allow new sound recordings of their film songs without the copyright owner’s permission. Finally, it stated that courts may balance competing interests by allowing continued use of disputed works subject to monetary deposits, especially when significant investments have been made. 

Conclusion 

The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a guide for India’s entertainment industry. The judgment clarifies the distinction between pre-2012 and post-2012 works, helping industry stakeholders understand their rights and obligations when dealing with older musical works. The decision demonstrates the court’s willingness to find practical solutions that balance artistic interests with commercial realities, as evidenced by allowing the film’s release subject to a security deposit. For the film industry, this judgment offers a clear message: while recreating old songs remains a popular trend, proper due diligence regarding copyright ownership is essential.