For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in M/S MRT Music v. Paramvah Studios Pvt. Ltd. [CS(COMM) 680/2024, decided on 28 March 2026], dealt with an important dispute concerning copyright infringement in film music. The case arose from the use of two songs, “Nyaya Ellide” and “Omme Ninnanu,” in the film Bachelor Party without obtaining a license from the alleged copyright owner.
The dispute raised significant legal questions relating to ownership of copyright in film music, the scope of licensing rights, the applicability of the ‘de minimis’ doctrine, and the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the context of OTT platforms. The Court ultimately ruled in favour of the Plaintiff and reaffirmed the strength of copyright protection under Indian law.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff, MRT Music, is a music label engaged in the acquisition and exploitation of sound recordings and cinematographic works. It claimed ownership over the two songs through an Assignment Deed dated 31 August 2020 executed by Sangeetha, which had earlier acquired rights from the original producers. The Plaintiff asserted that this assignment covered sound recordings as well as underlying musical and literary works.
In January 2024, the Defendants approached the Plaintiff seeking a license to use these songs in their film Bachelor Party. However, no agreement was finalized. Despite this, the film was released theatrically on 26 January 2024 and later made available on OTT platforms in March 2024. The songs were used without permission, one for approximately seven seconds in a television scene and the other for about thirty-one seconds in a classroom scene.
The Plaintiff filed a suit before the Delhi High Court in August 2024 seeking an injunction and damages. On 12 August 2024, the Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction directing the Defendants to deposit ₹20,00,000 and remove infringing content. The Defendants did not comply within time and instead challenged the order and the Court’s jurisdiction. The Plaintiff then initiated contempt proceedings. The Defendants eventually deposited the amount during the pendency of proceedings.
Argument in Favour
The Plaintiff argued that it was the lawful owner of copyright in the songs through a valid chain of assignments. It relied on Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants exclusive rights such as reproduction, communication to the public, and licensing, and on Section 51, which defines infringement as unauthorized use of such rights. The Plaintiff also invoked Section 55(2), which creates a presumption of ownership in favour of the person claiming copyright unless disproved.
On licensing, the Plaintiff relied on Section 30 of the Act, which permits a copyright owner to grant licenses. It argued that Section 33, which regulates copyright societies, does not restrict an individual copyright owner from licensing its own works. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants were aware of this position, as they had themselves approached the Plaintiff for a license prior to the release of the film. This, the Plaintiff argued, also gave rise to estoppel, preventing the Defendants from later denying Plaintiff’s ownership.
The Plaintiff strongly opposed the “de minimis” defence. It argued that the use of the songs was not incidental but intentional and meaningful. The songs were specifically selected to enhance the emotional and narrative elements of the film, and therefore even brief usage could amount to infringement. The Plaintiff emphasized that copyright law protects not only the quantity but also the quality and purpose of use.
On jurisdiction, the Plaintiff contended that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction since the film was available on OTT platforms and could be accessed within Delhi. This gave rise to a cause of action under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also relied on Section 62 of the Copyright Act, which allows a copyright owner to institute a suit where it carries on business.
Finally, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants had willfully disobeyed the Court’s order by failing to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. Such disobedience, it argued, warranted strict action.
Argument Against
The Defendants argued that the use of the songs was minimal and incidental, and therefore fell within the “de minimis” doctrine. According to them, the songs were used only for short durations of seven and thirty-one seconds, and such limited use could not amount to infringement.
They challenged the Plaintiff’s ownership by questioning the chain of title. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff had failed to establish valid assignments from the original authors and composers of the songs. Without such proof, the Plaintiff could not claim ownership over the underlying musical and literary works.
The Defendants also relied on Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act, arguing that the Plaintiff’s rights had lapsed due to non-exploitation within the prescribed time. They further contended that the Plaintiff, not being a registered copyright society, could not engage in the business of licensing under Section 33. In support of this argument, they relied on the decision in Azure Hospitality v. Phonographic Performance Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2407, which interpreted Section 33 as imposing restrictions on licensing activities.
On jurisdiction, the Defendants argued that both parties were based in Bengaluru and that the film was primarily released there. They contended that mere availability of the film on OTT platforms in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction, as there was no specific targeting of the Delhi audience.
Additionally, the Defendants raised technical arguments regarding the validity of the musical works, claiming that works created prior to the 1994 amendment required graphical notation to qualify as “musical works” under the Copyright Act. In the absence of such notation, they argued, no copyright could subsist.
Court’s Decision
On jurisdiction, the Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It reasoned that the availability of the film on OTT platforms accessible in Delhi constituted sufficient cause of action under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court relied on Nilesh Girkar v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6040, where it was held that communication of content through OTT platforms across territories can confer jurisdiction.
On ownership, the Court found that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case. The assignment deeds placed on record, coupled with the absence of any ownership claim by the Defendants, were sufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act.
The Court rejected the “de minimis” defence. It held that the test is not purely quantitative but also qualitative. The use of the songs was found to be deliberate and integral to the storyline of the film. In this context, the Court referred to Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. News Nation Network Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 930, which emphasized the importance of the qualitative aspect of use, and Ramsampath v. Rajesh Roshan, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370, where even brief use was held to constitute infringement. The Court distinguished India TV Independent News Service v. Yashraj Films, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4298, noting that the use in that case was incidental and non-commercial.
On licensing, the Court clarified that Section 33 does not bar an individual copyright owner from granting licenses. It held that the provision applies to copyright societies engaged in collective licensing and not to individual owners exercising their rights under Section 30. The Court distinguished Azure Hospitality, observing that it dealt with entities engaged in licensing as a business and not with individual copyright owners.
On contempt, the Court held that the Defendants had willfully disobeyed the order dated 12 August 2024. Relying on Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries, (1997) 3 SCC 443, it reiterated that court orders must be obeyed as long as they are in force, even if jurisdiction is challenged. It also relied on Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 59, to hold that disobedience remains punishable even if the order is later modified.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in its favour, and that irreparable harm would be caused if relief was denied.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Delhi High Court provides significant clarity on the protection of copyright in film music. It reinforces that copyright owners have strong and enforceable rights, including the right to license their works independently. The decision also makes it clear that even brief use of copyrighted material may amount to infringement if it is qualitatively significant and commercially motivated.
The Court’s recognition of OTT accessibility as a basis for jurisdiction reflects the realities of digital distribution. At the same time, the ruling emphasizes strict compliance with court orders and underscores the consequences of willful disobedience.
Overall, the decision strengthens the enforcement of intellectual property rights and serves as a clear warning that unauthorized use of copyrighted works, even for short durations, can attract serious legal consequences.
