The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to vacate the interim injunction granted in favour of Saregama India Limited in its copyright dispute with music composer Ilaiyaraaja over rights in songs and musical works from 134 films [Saragama Vs Ilaiyaraaja].
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to vacate the injunction earlier passed against Ilaiyaraaja, which restrained him from exploiting, using, issuing licences or claiming ownership over works claimed by Saregama.
The interim order covers sound recordings as well as literary and musical works forming part of several films including Annakkili, 16 Vayathiniley, Kavikkuyil, Bharathi, Pallavi Anu Pallavi, Mullum Malarum, Raaja Paarvai, Netrikkann and Kalyanaraman.
A detailed copy of the order is yet to be made available.
The case arose from a suit filed by Saregama against Ilaiyaraaja alleging that the composer was exploiting and licensing works over which Saregama claimed copyright.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had, on February 13, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Ilaiyaraaja from exploiting, using, licensing or claiming ownership over Saregama’s copyrighted works.
The interim order covered sound recordings as well as literary and musical works forming part of 134 cinematograph films listed in the order.
Saregama claimed before the Court that it was incorporated in 1901 and was earlier known as The Gramophone Company of India Limited. It said that between 1976 and 2001, it entered into assignment agreements with producers of various films, under which copyright in the sound recordings, musical works and literary works of songs vested in the company.
The company further claimed that it owns a sizeable catalogue of film and non-film music in Tamil, Hindi, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and other languages, and that it licenses these works to third parties.
According to Saregama, in the first week of February 2026, it came across alleged infringing use of its copyrighted works on platforms such as Amazon Music, iTunes and JioSaavn. It also alleged that Ilaiyaraaja had made ownership claims over such content.
Saregama also referred to a legal notice issued by Ilaiyaraaja on January 13, 2026, in which he claimed rights over musical works created, composed, arranged and orchestrated by him for various films, including the works forming part of the suit.
While granting interim relief, the Court had on February 13 observed that Saregama had shown a “prima facie, strong case” in its favour. It also held that the balance of convenience was tilted in favour of Saregama and that the company could suffer irreparable loss if interim protection was not granted.
The Court had therefore restrained Ilaiyaraaja and those acting on his behalf from exploiting or issuing licences for Saregama’s copyrighted works, or from making any claim of ownership to third parties in relation to such works.
The music compose then filed a plea to vacate the interim order.
The same was rejected today.
Saregama was represented by Senior Advocates Chander M Lall and Akhil Sibal with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit, Sucheta Roy and Rishabh Rao from Khaitan & Co.
Ilaiyaraaja was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar with Advocates Naveen Nagarjuna, Shloka Narayanan, Ritk Raghuwanshi, Rishika Agarwal and Anshu Tulsyan.