Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today (01 October) has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order restraining the use of a recreated version of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, in a challenge brought up by music composer Ilaiyaraaja. The bench, instead, clarified that the High Court's observations are prima facie.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the music composer, against the Delhi High Court's Division Bench order.

The dispute pertains to Vels Film International Limited using a recreated version of the song. Vels claimed a licence from Ilaiyaraaja under an agreement. While Saregama India Limited contended that it owned the rights through an assignment from the film's original producer.

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted Saregama an injunction, pursuant to which Ilaiyaraaja appealed before a Division Bench. In May this year, a Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeal, holding that his copyright is limited to the music of the song and does not extend to the lyrics or the sound recording.

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, a review petition was filed which was also dismissed, leading to the present SLP filed before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram submitted that the High Court's order had far reaching consequences. “There are three other lawsuits which have been now filed based on this order,” he contended. Invoking Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957, he argued that “the whole purpose of 13(4) is gone.” For context, Section 13(4) provides that copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording does not affect the separate copyright in the underlying work.

Reference was made to Saregama's pleading, Sundaram pointed out to a passage that states as “even though the plaintiff has not alleged any infringement of a sound recording, it has alleged infringement of its copyright in the musical and literary works of the song.”

Sundaram then pointed to the High Court's which states that Ilaiyaraaja “was, therefore, entitled to contract with any third party for use, or for adaptation, of the musical work contained in the disputed song, i.e., the musical component thereof.”

“Sound recording is not their case. Their case is the musical works,” he submitted, arguing that the right of adaptation lay only with Ilaiyaraja.

When Justice Chandran remarked that Sundaram was claiming the sound recording as well, he responded, “I am not giving any sound recording.”

When Sundaram pleaded that the parties were being made to litigate over the same issue, the bench asked why they were fighting unnecessarily, to which Sundaram replied, “because they are injuncting me.” With regards to the injunction, he submitted that the Single Judge's order only required a deposit of Rs. 30 Lakh. He informed the bench that the amount had been paid by the producers and had been complied with, and that the actual dispute was with the findings of the Division Bench, not the deposit.

Perusing the submissions made by the petitioner, the bench found no error in the High Court's order, and thus refused to interfere. “We are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the interlocutory order, granting injunction as prayed by the respondent,” the bench held.

On Sundaram's request to make it clear that the findings in the case are prima facie, and that not hold it as precedent, the bench acceded to the request.

“It is needless to clarify that the observations in the impugned judgment are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding the issue in question,” the bench clarified.

In the light of aforesaid, the SLP was dismissed and the Delhi High Court's order was upheld.

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr CA Sundaram, Sr Adv; Ms Swathi Sukumar, Sr Adv; Mr Naveen Nagarjuna, AOR

For Respondent: Mr Mukul Rohatgi, Sr Adv; Mr Rishabh Choraria (caveat)

Tags:    
Case Title :  Ilaiyaraaja v Saregama India Limited