Delhi High Court Closes Music Copyright Suit After Music Licensing Company Confirms Pre-1965 Songs Need No Licence

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a suit filed by Bignet Solutions LLP seeking a declaration that its use of pre-1965 sound recordings at a private event would not infringe Novex Communication Pvt. Ltd.'s copyright, after noting that Novex had categorically stated it does not claim any rights over sound recordings published before 1965.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on November 21, 2025, holding that the cause of action no longer survived since Bignet's October 12, 2025 event proceeded without disruption and Novex expressly disclaimed rights in the songs in question.

The dispute began when the venue hosting Bignet's event directed the company to obtain a licence from Novex, a music licensing company. Bignet initially sought a licence quote but later found that all 15 songs it intended to play were in the public domain because their 60-year copyright term under Section 27 of the Copyright Act had expired.

On October 10, 2025, the court recorded statements from both sides. Novex stated it does not enforce rights over works it neither owns nor manages, nor over public-domain material. Bignet, in turn, undertook that it would restrict itself to the 15 songs listed in its plaint, each predating 1965, and agreed to submit a certified recording of the event along with a venue confirmation. The Court then permitted the event to proceed.

After the event, Bignet filed documents showing that the programme had concluded smoothly and that only the listed songs were played. It also submitted that its original email to Novex had enclosed the list of songs and that Novex should have clarified that no licence was required.

Novex responded that Bignet's email mentioned only the song titles without release dates and noted that at least one track has a recreated version over which Novex does hold rights. It reiterated that it does not seek licence fees for public-domain works and stated it was content with disposal of the suit, despite concerns about the completeness of the recording Bignet submitted.

Accepting Bignet's statement that only the pre-1965 tracks had been played and noting Novex's repeated disclaimers, the Court held: