Madras High Court Refuses To Vacate Interim Order Restraining "Good Bad Ugly" Movie From Using Ilaiyaraaja's Songs
The Madras High Court has refused to vacate its interim order restraining the makers of Ajith starrer "Good Bad Ugly" movie from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.Justice N Senthilkumar, on Wednesday, observed that Ilaiyaraaja is entitled to protect his work from distortion. The court thus dismissed the application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of "Good Bad...
The Madras High Court has refused to vacate its interim order restraining the makers of Ajith starrer "Good Bad Ugly" movie from using three songs of renowned musician Ilaiyaraaja.
Justice N Senthilkumar, on Wednesday, observed that Ilaiyaraaja is entitled to protect his work from distortion. The court thus dismissed the application filed by Mythri Movie Makers, producers of "Good Bad Ugly", seeking to vacate the interim order, noting that it did not have merit.
"Respondent [Ilaiyaraaja] is entitled to protect his work from distortion, modification. The present plea does not find merit. Plea is dismissed," the court said.
It may be noted that on September 8, 2025, the court had temporarily restrained the makers from using three songs of Ilaiyaraaja.
Ilaiyaraja had argued that the songs "Otha Rubayum Tharen" from the movie "Nattupura Pattu", the song "Ilamai Idho Ido" from the movie "Sakalakala Vallavan", and the song "En Jodi Manja Kuruvi" from the movie "Vikram" had been used in the Ajith movie without obtaining express consent or permission from him and without paying royalties to which he is statutorily entitled.
He thus claimed that the action constituted unauthorised use, appropriation, and a clear infringement of his copyright and moral rights. It was argued that Ilayaraja had not accorded any permission or consent, either express or implied, for using, altering, distorting, or changing the form of the songs to be used in the new movie.
Senior Advocate PV Balasubramaniam and Adv Navod Prasannan, appearing for Mthri Movies had argued that the production company was caught in between a crossfire between Ilaiyaraaja and the music labels each of whom was claiming that they had rights to the songs.
Balasubramaniam argued that the movies of which the songs were a part of, were very old and since it was before the amendment of the Copyright Act, the producers of the movie were the original owners of the songs. He further argued that if any person other than the producer claimed to be the owner of the songs, he had to produce some documents to prove the same, which Ilaiyaraaja had not done in the present case.
Balasubramaniam also argued that Ilaiyaraaja had not shown any urgency for the relief of interim injunction. It was argued that the movie was theatrically released in April this year but the application for interim injunction was not filed till September, which showed that there was no urgency.
On the other hand, Advocate A Saravanan, appearing for Ilaiyaraaja, argued that the musician was not seeking remuneration but recognition. He argued that the musician wanted the filmmakers to approach him and seek permission before using his songs.
It was also argued that at the time of entering into agreement with the music labels, Ilaiyaraaja had not parted with his entire right in the work. It was submitted that the agreement with the music labels was for exploiting the songs by way of cassettes, for marketing and the money was not received for alienating his rights in the songs.
Saravanan also argued that while making songs for the movies, there was no employer-employee relationship between him and the producers of the movie, and on the other hand, he had merely given a license to use his songs. Ilaiyaraaja also argued that the musical work did not form part of the cinematograph film and could not be culled out separately to exploit it.
Case Title: Mythri Movie Makers v. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
Case No: A 4570 of 2025