Delhi High Court orders ‘Mask’ movie makers to drop Saregama-owned ‘Naguva Nayana’ song or pay ₹30 lakh

The Delhi High Court has directed the producers of the Tamil film Mask to either remove the Kannada song Naguva Nayana from the film or deposit ₹30 lakh before the Court as interim licence fees before its OTT or satellite release [Saregama Vs Black Madras Films].

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on December 9 after finding that Saregama India Ltd owns copyright over the composition.

The Court was hearing a suit by Saregama alleging that the song from Pallavi Anu Pallavi was used without authorisation. Saregama argued that it holds a 1980 copyright assignment from the film’s producer.

"The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. However, as the Defendants’ Film has already been theatrically released world-wide and the plaintiff has made statement that the plaintiff has no objection for the release of the Defendants’ film on OTT platforms, Satellite television and other online platforms, so long as the license fees is deposited before this Court, the balance of convenience is not entirely in favour of the plaintiff," the Court directed.

Saregama, represented by Senior Advocates Chander M Lall and J Sai Deepak, asserted that the producer of Pallavi Anu Pallavi, Venus Pictures, executed a Copyright Assignment Agreement in 1980 transferring the perpetual, worldwide rights in all songs from the film to Saregama.

As a result, Saregama owns the sound recording, musical composition and literary components of Naguva Nayana and has the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, synchronise or license the song, it was argued.

On November 26, it learnt that Mask had used the song as background music. A cease-and-desist notice was sent by Saregama the same day seeking regularisation.

The filmmakers responded stating they had obtained a licence directly from composer Ilaiyaraja.

Saregama then moved the Court arguing that this was invalid because Ilaiyaraja, though the composer, did not retain copyright ownership and therefore, could not license the song.

It further argued that Ilaiyaraja was not the author of the lyrics, which were written by RN Jayagopal and therefore, he could not have licensed the literary work either.

Saregama also pointed to a similar case decided earlier this year in its favour in which the Court had rejected the same defence.

The Court agreed with Saregama. It held that copyright in the song had vested in the producer and had been validly assigned to Saregama and hence, the composer could not have issued a licence for the song.

However, the Court noted that Mask had already been released in cinemas. It also recorded that Saregama did not oppose an OTT release if the licence fee was secured. The Court said this balanced convenience for both sides.

Therefore, the Court directed the filmmakers to either remove the song or pay ₹30 lakh before any online release. If they do not comply, the film cannot be released on OTT, satellite or digital platforms while using the song. The case will be heard again on March 23, 2026.

"Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall either remove the Subject Song, ‘Naguva Nayana’ from the defendants’ Firm, ‘Mask’ or deposit an amount of ₹30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) with the Registrar General of this Court before the release of the defendants’ Film ‘Mask’ on OTT Platforms, Satellite Television or any other online platform, failing which....defendants are hereby restrained from releasing the defendants’ Film, ‘Mask’, on OTT Platforms, Satellite Television or any other online platform, while using the Subject Song, ‘Naguva Nayana’," the Court said in its order.

The two Senior Advocates were briefed by advocates Ankur Sangal, Shashwat Rakshit, Amrit Sharma and Annanya Mehan from Khaitan & Co.

[Read Order]