Copy rights issue AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ILAIYARAAJA I, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, son of Mr. Ramasamy, aged about 82 years,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
O.A. No. of 2025
in
CS (COMM.DIV) NO. OF 2025
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja,
New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. …APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
Versus
1) M/s. Sony Music Entertainment India Private Ltd,
Represented by its Managing Director,
2nd Floor, First International Financial Centre,
Bandra Kurla Complex Road, Mumbai,
Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra-400098.
2) Echo Recording Company Pvt. Ltd,
Represented by its Managing Director,
62, Aspiran Garden 2nd Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.
3) Oriental Records,
Represented by its Authorised signatory,
11 Creekside Court, Secaucus NJ 07094 USA.
…RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ILAIYARAAJA
I, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, son of Mr. Ramasamy, aged about 82 years, residing at New New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows;
1. I state that I am the applicant herein and plaintiff in the above suit as such
I am well acquainted with the facts of the case. I crave leave of this Hon’ble court to treat the averments made in the plaint filed in the above suit as part and parcel of this affidavit.
2. I am known under the “Isaignani” (Musical Genius) and revered as “Maestro” of music, reflecting my unparalleled stature in the world of music not only in Tamil Nadu, India, but also globally. I am an eminent Indian creator, music composer, conductor, arranger, lyricist, and playback singer, whose multifaceted contributions have profoundly shaped Tamilian, Indian and global music landscape. Renowned for my meticulous involvement in every aspect of music production, I am responsible for the orchestration, arrangement of instruments, writing of notations, conducting of orchestras, creation and producing of the sound recordings, and balancing of tracks. My deep expertise extends to penning lyrics and lending his own voice as a singer. My innovative and creative approach and mastery over both Indian and Western musical idioms have earned me recognition as one of the greatest music composers in history of world of music.
3. My career is distinguished by a prodigious and truly unparalleled body of work in global music history. I have composed over 7,500 songs and holds the unique distinction of being the only composer worldwide, to have created/scored music for more than 1,450 feature films across nine languages. In addition to my extraordinary achievements in composition, I have authored lyrics for over 1,500 songs and rendered my vocal/voice as a playback singer in more than 1,000 recordings, accomplishments unmatched by any of my peers (past and present). My mastery extends to the creation of background scores, with his original compositions exceeding an astounding 150,000 minutes of continuous music. My global impact was further recognized as early as in 2003 (in a pre-digital and early internet era), when an international poll conducted by the BBC, with participation spanning 165 countries ranked my composition “Rakkamma Kaiya Thattu” from the hugely popular film ‘Thalapathi’ (1991) as the fourth most popular song of all time.
4. My exceptional contributions to music have been formally recognized through the most prestigious awards conferred by Governments and distinguished institutions. The Government of India has honored me with five National Film Awards for Best Music Direction and Background Score, establishing my pre-eminence in Indian cinema music. Amongst many other, my artistic excellence has been acknowledged with the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award in 2012, the highest recognition bestowed by India’s national academy for performing arts upon practicing artists. In recognition of my distinguished service to the nation through arts, music, creativity and performances, I was conferred the Padma Bhushan in 2010 and subsequently the Padma Vibhushan in 2018, India’s third and second highest civilian honors respectively. The pinnacle of institutional recognition was my nomination by the President of India as a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha (in the year 2022), a rare distinction reserved for individuals of exceptional contributions to society and of national significance. Internationally, prestigious institutions have honored me with the Centenary Award for Lifetime Achievement at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in 2015, and I hold honorary doctorates from various esteemed universities. These accolades collectively affirm my standing as one of India’s most distinguished cultural ambassadors and musical luminaries.
5. In a 2013 poll conducted by CNN celebrating 100 Years of Indian cinema, I was voted as the All-time Greatest Film-Music Director of India. In 2014, American World Cinema portal “Taste of Cinema” placed me at the 9th position in its list of 25 greatest film composers in the history of cinema amongst Ennio Morricone, John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith and Hans Zimmer.
6. My profound expertise in both Indian and Western classical music, which empowers me to independently envision and compose fully realized musical works. My creative process often commences with the meticulous writing of musical notations or by capturing melodic concepts through vocal recordings, achieved even before any formal engagement with film producers or external directives. Unlike the conventional practice where composers develop music after receiving guidance or instructions for specific projects, I, invariably and most number of times, initiates and completes my compositions autonomously, ensuring each piece is an original and self-sustained creation.
7. Throughout my illustrious career, my distinctive and autonomous approach to musical composition and during the entire workflow, I exercise absolute control over each and every stage of musical production, from selecting the lyricist and lyrics, crafting notations, painstaking orchestration and arranging instrumental parts, to conducting recording sessions and personally overseeing sound engineering and balancing of musical tracks. Every layer of the creative journey, from inception to final production of the sound recording/, is managed directly by me with no external interference or prescribed instructions. This singular approach not only amplifies the integrity and individuality of my musical works but also sets me apart as a composer, arranger, conductor, and producer of such musical works who assumes complete and independent stewardship over every aspect of my music’s creation and realization.
8. This distinctive and autonomous approach to composition and production has been consistently recognized, experienced, and affirmed by eminent film directors who have collaborated extensively with me throughout my illustrious career, underscoring my singular mastery and authoritative command over every phase of my musical creations. They acknowledge that I singularly conceive, develop, and execute my compositions with full creative independence without external interference or prescribed instructions.
9. As such, my relationship with cinematograph film producers and creative collaborators has always been on a principal-to-principal basis, never as an employee or under a “work for hire” arrangement. As the unique creator and first author of all my musical works, I have consistently asserted and exercised my authorship and ownership, retaining absolute rights and titles, including moral rights, over my original compositions and connected sound recordings. My process is singular, compositions are conceived, developed, often before any formal engagement(s) with a particular cinematograph film(s) and largely basis certain likings towards a director, artist or a person or a story. This approach reinforces the fact that my works are not created at the instance, direction, or under the control of any producer, but rather emerge from my complete creative autonomy, basis only certain inputs from the director(s). My control extends from initial composition to final production, synchronisation into an audio/visual form, absolutely with no external interference or direction. This fact has been attested by numerous directors and collaborators. To date, there exist no evidence of any assignment, transfer, or alienation of his rights in favor of any producer, studio, or third party. No person has produced documentation or legal basis to establish that I have parted with the title, ownership, or any aspect of my moral rights in my original musical works. This enduring record underscores my unequivocal status as the sole and original owner of my musical legacy, with all rights intact and unencumbered.
10. It is a well-established and undisputed fact that, in my creative practice, the genesis of my musical works unfailingly begin with the exclusive and independent act of music composition. I singularly conceptualize, write, and complete my musical pieces at my own initiative and discretion, without any direction or dependence on the cinematic project for which they may ultimately be considered. This self-contained musical work is subsequently realized in the form of a sound recording, over which he maintains direct and decisive control, managing every aspect of its production, arrangement, performance, and engineering.
11. It is only after the musical work and the corresponding sound recording have been fully brought into existence that the process of creating the video or visual component for a cinematograph film commences. Significantly, there exists no presumption or certainty that either the musical work or the accompanying sound recording will necessarily form an integral part of the motion picture, the inclusion or exclusion of such works is not predetermined and rests wholly at the discretion of the composer and other creative stakeholders.
12. Consequently, in my creative methodology, the musical work, the sound recording, and the cinematograph film each possess clear and independent identities. This independence is not merely theoretical but is reflected in practice and is further recognized by law specifically, under the Copyright Act. Each category carries its distinct mode of authorship, ownership, and exclusive rights. Thus, the manner in which I originate, produce, and oversee my body of work ensures that my musical compositions, sound recordings, and their potential usage in cinematograph films are separate and autonomous creations, both factually and legally, retaining their individual statuses irrespective of their eventual adaptation, use, or integration into a film or any other medium.
13. As the author, I have has always maintained that ownership and rights are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. As per Section 17 of the Act, I am the first owner of my works in the absence of any written assignment to the contrary. Under Section 14, I hold the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, and communicate my works to the public. Crucially, I possess inalienable moral rights under Section 57, which empowers me to protect the integrity of my compositions from any distortion, mutilation, or modification that would be prejudicial to my honor or reputation. These rights were unequivocally reinforced by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which mandates that composers receive an equal share of royalties from the digital exploitation of their works. Furthermore, a binding 2019 Madras High Court judgment expressly affirmed my moral rights and prohibited the unauthorized online use and modification of his compositions.
14. It is a well-established fact that numerous broadcasters, television networks, and public media, digital platforms routinely utilize my musical works for commercial exploitation. Under settled principles of copyright law, any person or entity seeking to use such protected works for commercial benefit, public exploitation, or business gains is legally obligated to obtain the necessary and appropriate permissions, licenses, or sanctions directly from the rightful owner and creator of these works i.e. the plaintiff in this case. The failure to secure such proper authorization constitutes unauthorized usage and infringement of my exclusive rights over my musical compositions and sound recordings. Despite the widespread commercial use of my works across various media platforms, many such usages occur without obtaining the requisite licenses or permissions from me, thereby violating my fundamental rights as the original creator and copyright holder of these musical works.
15. I state that the first Respondent/Defendant is exploiting my musical works through various digital platforms and streaming services without compliance with the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, which mandates equal sharing of royalties with the original creator. The first Respondent/Defendant has been commercially exploiting my extensive repertoire of musical compositions on digital platforms including but not limited to YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and many other streaming services. This exploitation by the first Respondent/Defendant is being conducted without payment of the statutorily mandated equal share of royalties to me as the original author and copyright owner of musical works, which are in direct violation of Section 38A of the Copyright Act as amended in 2012. I am informed and reliably given to understand that the first Respondent/Defendant is generating substantial commercial revenue from such digital exploitation while denying my rightful share of royalties.
16. I further state that the first Respondent/Defendant, Sony Music, through its official digital platforms, including its YouTube channel “Sony Music South,” Instagram account (@sonymusic_south), Twitter handle (@SonyMusicSouth), and Facebook page, has been publishing, modifying, mutilating, adapting, and remastering my original musical works without authorization. The first Respondent/Defendant has created and published various compilations, jukeboxes, and modified versions of my compositions, including but not limited to “BAILA Songs of Ilaiyaraaja Jukebox,” “Ilaiyaraaja’s BEST Instrumental Music Collection,” and numerous other adaptations where the original musical works have been remastered, re-arranged, and presented in altered forms. In the description of each such digital release, the first Respondent/Defendant, frequently lists the names of current producers, mixers, and mastering engineers responsible for the new releases, indicating substantial modifications beyond the original tracks. For example, “Music Production, Mixed & Mastered: V R Vignesh, Violin: Sai Krishnan, Flute: Nimal Varshan” appears on the instrumental collection, documenting intervention in both arrangement and audio engineering, indicating direct technical and artistic intervention beyond preservation or claiming to be simple enhancement. The first Respondent/Defendant further involves in routine publications and communications under various other titles with the name and image with the title as Ilaiyaraaja’s works in new thematic compilations and audio jukeboxes, sometimes paired with new visual elements, graphic overlays, or video presentations, which constitute a modified and adapted form of the original musical works for digital distribution, also Posts and promotions on the first Respondent/Defendant’s official digital channels make repeated references. For instance, the playlist titled ‘Ilaiyaraaja’s BEST Instrumental Music Collection Vol 1 Jukebox’ (published July 8, 2025) displays in its description and end credits terms like “remastered,” “re-created,” and “newly arranged,” which are not part of the original compositions. Remastered compilations and themed albums, such as ‘Lullabies of Ilaiyaraaja (Vol.1)’ and ‘Solo Songs of Ilaiyaraaja Vol 1’, often contain updated instrumentation, altered arrangements, or changes in tempo and mix, which are distinguishable upon auditory comparison with the original soundtrack versions released in films. Some releases combine medleys or “blended” tracks from different original movies, sometimes with modern synth overlays or studio effects, and are visually paired with new animations or graphics, features not present in the original releases.
17. The aforesaid acts of the first Respondent/Defendant, who are claiming to be the successor in title from the previously defunct company, Echo Recording Private Limited – the second Respondent/defendant herein, is in direct contravention of the 2019 judgment of the Single bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Court specifically upheld my moral rights as a composer and recognized my entitlement to prevent unauthorized exploitation of my musical works in forms that prejudice my honour and reputation. The said judgment specifically acknowledged my moral and special rights as a composer, including the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or other modifications of his works that would be prejudicial to my honour or reputation. The first Respondent/Defendant’s continued digital exploitation, modification, and remastering of my musical works despite this clear judicial pronouncement demonstrates wilful infringement and contempt of the established legal position.
18. I respectfully submit that my title and ownership rights as the author and first owner of the musical works and underlying sound recordings, as defined under the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended in 2012), read with Sections 14 and 17 thereof, are presently the subject matter of judicial determination before this Hon’ble Court in pending proceedings. My assertion that I have not assigned, alienated, sold, transferred, or otherwise parted with my legal rights, title, and interest in favor of any third party, including the producers of the respective cinematograph films, remains sub judice and is yet to be finally adjudicated upon. It is pertinent to mention that the relief claimed in the present suit are and may not be affected by the final outcome of the aforesaid pending matter since the reliefs claimed in the present to are distinct from the issues pending in the previous matters.
19. While these being the overall factual and legal positions, it is necessary to clarify the historical nature and extent of licenses/permissions/ recognitions granted by me. The second Respondent/defendant herein, in certain instances, through the producers of the respective movies, and with my oral consent, obtained licenses solely for the purpose of manufacture and sale of audio cassettes and compact discs containing the audio songs composed by me. In every case, the scope of the permission/license/authorisation was limited to such manufacture and sale of copy of such sound recordings in connection with promotion of the respective cinematograph films and at no time, whether by express or implied terms, were any broader rights or forms of exploitation, including digital exploitation or use in any mode beyond audio cassettes and CDs, ever was granted to Echo Recordings Private Limited, the Second Respondent/Defendant herein. Significantly, no rights for exploiting the songs in any future mode of streaming were ever granted to the second Respondent/defendant either by the producers of the respective movies or by me.
20. I have, subsequently, became aware that the second Respondent/defendant had begun commercially exploiting my musical works in manners and formats well beyond the scope of the licenses actually granted, thereby deriving commercial gains from unauthorized usages. On learning these facts, I was compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing Civil Suit C.S. No. 625 of 2014 seeking injunction against the Echo Recording company, the second Respondent/defendant herein.
21. In the said suit C.S. No. 625 of 2014, the I had sought for, inter alia,: (a) restraining the defendants from entering into or performing any third-party agreements concerning the suit schedule films; (b) restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, distributing, or infringing the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to deal with any sound recording composed or made by the Plaintiff; and (c) restraining the defendants from any adverse communication with dealers, suppliers, or customers regarding the Plaintiff’s works, particularly actions that question or conflict with the Plaintiff’s established rights.
22. On 4th June 2019, a judgment and decree was rendered in the said Suit, stating inter alia that Echo (the predecessor of the first Respondent/defendant) had obtained rights in certain sound recordings contained in the suit films and was entitled to exploit the same in the specific form and manner as contained in the respective cinematograph films only(in respect of 303 title albums). The said Judgment explicitly confined the exploitation rights, if any, to the terms and limitations of specific form and manner as contained.
23. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by this particular portion of the judgement, I have filed an Appeal in O.S.A. No. 29 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court assailing the Impugned Judgment and decree. By order dated 18th February 2022, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble court was pleased to stay the operative portion of the Impugned Judgment that pertains to Echo’s alleged rights, and the appeal remains pending consideration and final determination.
24. Notwithstanding this position, the first Respondent/defendant now asserts claims to ownership of all copyright in respect of the musical works, asserting that it acquired such rights over the songs of the 303 films (and other songs) from the second Respondent/defendant. The first Respondent/defendant has also sought to be impleaded in O.S.A. No. 29 of 2022 by way of a formal application, which is pending adjudication.
25. It is pertinent to reiterate that, until such time as the Respondents/defendants establish, through judicial proceedings currently pending in Chennai and Mumbai, that they possess validly derived and judicially recognised rights over my musical works and sound recordings, they hold no lawful right or title thereto. In these circumstances, the continued, unauthorized exploitation of my musical works by the Respondents/defendants, without my express written consent, without any payment of statutorily mandated royalties, and contrary to both statutory and judicial restraints, is impermissible in law and constitutes not only copyright infringement but also unfair trade practices and a prima facie violation of my subsisting rights.
26. It is further pertinent to highlight that I was the beneficiary of a permanent injunction in his favour until the year 2019, and during the subsistence of the said injunction, continuously exploited the relevant musical works and associated sound recordings via digital platforms and mediums, without any interruption or challenge to his use and enjoyment of such rights.
27. Notably, the first Respondent/Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Echo Recordings Private Limited, never at any point in time published, released, or otherwise exploited my musical works in the digital environment or medium. It was only upon and subsequent to the first Respondent/Defendant’s acquisition of purported rights from Echo Recordings Private Limited, in or around the year 2022, the first Respondent/Defendant commenced digital publication and exploitation of the musical works and underlying sound recordings authored by me.
28. The first Respondent/defendant claimed to have obtained rights through the 3rd defendant by way of agreement entered in February 2020. The first Respondent/defendant claims that the second Respondent/defendant had executed an assignment agreement dated 02.02.2020 in favour of the 3rd defendant and that subsequently, the first Respondent/defendant had executed a Catalogue acquisition agreement dated 14.02.2020 with the third Respondent/defendant. The alleged agreement dated 14.02.2020 was claimed by the first Respondent/defendant for the first time after January 2022. It is highly relevant to note that the signatories of both the second Respondent/defendant and third defendant are one and the same. The purported agreements were alleged to have entered within a span of 12 days, which has no reasoning or justification in doing so, and hance the genuineness of its execution requires serious legal scrutiny, particularly when the signatories of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent/defendants are one and the same.
29. It is pertinent to note that the first Respondent/defendant had negotiated with me through the other director of my company Ilaiyaraja Music and Management P.Ltd., namely Mr. Sriram since July 2021 for acquiring the rights in respect of the musical works and sound recordings of the songs composed by me. There are ample evidences showing the negotiations between the officials of the first Respondent/defendant company with me for acquiring the rights over the songs. In all the in person discussions, email communications and in the communications through Whatsapp, the first Respondent/defendant had not uttered anything amount the purported agreement entered with the second Respondent/defendant. In fact, the first Respondent/defendant had knowledge about the role of the second Respondent/defendant in these songs only through the negotiations with me and my associate Mr. Sriram. I reasonably suspect that after obtaining the necessary details from me and Mr. Sriram, the first Respondent/defendant had created a back dated agreement as if the same was entered with the second Respondent/defendant.
30. It is highly relevant to state that the purported signatory of the second Respondent/defendant in the alleged agreement dated 14.02.2020 entered between the first and second Respondent/defendants namely Mr. Parthasarathy was not in a fit state of health to sign any document at that point of time. The alleged document dated 14.02.2020 could not have been signed by the said Mr. Parthasarathy. Therefore, the purported Catalogue Acquisition Agreement dated 14th February, 2020 is invalid on law and the first Respondent/defendant has not derived any lawful rights through the said Agreement. It is just and necessary that the Respondents/defendants be restrained from carrying out any actions pursuant to and/or on the basis of the purported Catalogue Acquisition Agreement dated 14th February, 2020.
31. Most telling of all is the first Respondent/Defendant’s decision to enter into a Confidentiality Agreement (CA) dated 18th October 2021 with me, expressly contemplating a future catalogue acquisition agreement. Such conduct is entirely incompatible with any assertion of pre-existing ownership. Had the first Respondent/Defendant truly been the legitimate and rightful owner, by virtue of these purported agreements, there would have been no need to enter into the CA with my Company and initiate for further negotiations and personal meetings with me, let alone a CA setting the stage for eventual formalization of rights. The CA, viewed against my extensive engagement and the first Respondent/Defendant’s failure to disclose its alleged rights during critical negotiations, stands as unequivocal evidence that the first Respondent/Defendant’s claim of title is not only unsubstantiated but was likely fabricated long after the fact, calls into question the legitimacy and existence of the alleged chain of title. It strongly supports the inference that the first Respondent/Defendant did not, at the relevant time, possess valid rights and was seeking a transactional route to acquire them—which now stands in contradiction to later claims.
32. Further, it is egregious that the first Defendant derives economic benefit and leverages the fruits of my creative genius, spanning decades, relying solely on a legally suspect and factually incomplete set of documents, and undermines the credibility of the alleged agreements. The absence of valid title, strategic concealment, incapacity of signatories, geographical inconsistencies, lack of consideration, and questionable authenticity cumulatively yield a strong presumption that the documents relied upon are not genuine transactions but fabricated instruments designed to defeat my lawful rights.
33. It is only just and proper that these impugned agreements are subjected to thorough forensic examination and judicial scrutiny before the Respondents/Defendants are allowed to undertake further action or exploit my works. The entire factual landscape, deeply coloured by procedural, substantive, and behavioural inconsistencies, warrants the declaration that the first Respondent/defendant do not derive any right through the purported agreement dated 14.02.2020 entered with the third Respondent/defendant. Unless and until valid title is established, no Respondent/Defendant should be permitted to usurp my creative legacy.
34. My creative output, spanning nearly half a century, comprises an invaluable volume of individual musical works and sound recordings. It is unsustainable in fact, dangerous to justice to suggest that all these works could have been disentitled in a single, or series of generic transfer, (wholly not consistent with statutory prescribed manner of assignment or transfer of Copyright rights or ownership) disregarding the distinct contractual and creative circumstances that accompany each composition. Each musical work holds its distinct identity and protection, requiring rigorous establishment of claimed rights at every link in any alleged chain.
35. The first Respondent/Defendant’s actions in commencing digital exploitation, under the ostensible aegis of rights acquired from its predecessor, were conducted in a manner that was both clandestine and lacking in transparency, without adequate notice, consent, or authorization from me, and in clear disregard of my subsisting rights and the pending judicial determination of title by this Hon’ble Court.
36. I further would like to bring to this hon’ble court that parallel proceedings have been initiated by the first Respondent/Defendant in Mumbai, wherein the I have, inter alia, raised the plea of (i) jurisdiction, (ii) res judicata, (iii) fraudulent practices, along with many other legal grounds. Until such time as the first Respondent/Defendant successfully establish through proper judicial adjudication that it has derived valid, legal, and subsisting title or rights over my musical works and associated sound recordings, the Respondents/Defendants hold no enforceable title, right, or interest whatsoever in the said works.
37. Notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, I continue to enjoy and exercise my absolute moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as expressly recognized, upheld, and affirmed by this Hon’ble High Court in its previous orders and judgments. Further, without prejudice to the other grounds, I further submit that the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, as presented before Parliament by the then Hon’ble Law Minister Mr. Kapil Sibal, was enacted specifically to correct the legal anomaly arising from the 1977 Supreme Court judgment and the consequent marginalisation of authors’ rights in cinematograph works. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Bill, as well as the Minister’s speech, unequivocally recognize the author’s enduring and joint rights in their underlying works, particularly where such works are subsequently exploited in any manner separate from their use within the cinematograph film. Parliament thereby expressly intended that the author’s right should subsist alongside any rights claimed by producers or assignees in sound recordings, and that authors are to be treated as joint rightsholders, entitled to an equal share in all forms of royalty, licensing, and revenue arising from such exploitation. The present case is therefore squarely governed by this legislative objective, and any determination of the rights in sound recordings must be so construed and enforced.
38. In the circumstances, the first Respondent/Defendant’s ongoing unauthorized exploitation, distribution, and commercial use of my musical works, without obtaining the my express prior written consent and without payment of the statutorily mandated equal share of royalties as provided under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, tainted by their conduct in seeking to usurp and exploit my works in the digital medium for the first time only after 2022, contrary to historical industry practice and in disregard of my own ongoing, public exploitations and enforceable rights, is not only legally impermissible and constitutes copyright infringement, but also amounts to unfair trade practices in violation of established commercial law principles.
39. I have identified extensive evidence of first Respondent/Defendant’s unauthorized exploitation across multiple digital platforms. On YouTube, the first Respondent/Defendant’s (Sony Music South’s) official channel has published numerous compilations and modified versions of my works, including systematic remastering and re-presentation of original compositions. Their Instagram account (@sonymusic_south) regularly promotes these unauthorized adaptations, while their Twitter handle (@SonyMusicSouth) and Facebook page (SonyMusicSouth) actively market and distribute these modified works to generate commercial advantage. These platforms collectively demonstrate first Respondent/Defendant’s systematic and organized infringement of my copyright and moral rights through digital channels, with each post and publication constituting a separate act of infringement.
40. The first Respondent/Defendant’s digital exploitation strategy involves the unauthorized commercial use of my musical works across streaming platforms, social media channels, and digital distribution networks in the forms of individual song uploads, compilation albums, instrumental versions, thematic collections (such as rain songs, love songs, heroic songs), and remastered versions—all generated without my consent and in violation of my statutory rights under the Copyright Act. The first Respondent/Defendant’s actions not only infringe upon my economic rights but also violates my moral rights by modifying, adapting, and presenting my works in contexts and formats that may not align with my artistic vision and integrity as the original creator. The first Respondent/Defendant has been generating advertising revenue, subscription fees, and other commercial benefits from the digital distribution of my works while refusing to acknowledge my rights or provide appropriate compensation. This commercial exploitation includes the creation of branded content, promotional campaigns, and revenue-generating digital products using my musical works as the primary content, all without my consent or participation in the revenue sharing mandated by law. Such unauthorized exploitation constitutes a continuing violation of copyright law and demands immediate judicial intervention to protect the rights of one of India’s most celebrated composers.
41. Despite ongoing legal proceedings and clear judicial pronouncements regarding my rights, the first Respondent/Defendant continues to engage through its digital platforms, digital exploitation, modification, and remastering activities constitute a flagrant violation and amounts to systematic infringement. The first Respondent/defendant’s actions constitute wilful and continuous violation of Sections 14, 17, and 57 of the Copyright Act, as well as the specific provisions of the 2012 Amendment Act regarding royalty sharing. The first Respondent/Defendant’s refusal to cease unauthorized exploitation or enter into proper licensing arrangements with me demonstrates bad faith and deliberate infringement.
42. It is highly relevant to mention that the Respondents/defendants show no respect for the interim order passed by the division bench of this Hon’ble court in OSA No. 29 of 2022 wherein the part of the decree conferring title in favour of the second defendant has been stayed since 18.02.2022. Despite the said order of this Hon’ble court, the Respondents/defendants continue to exploit the songs covered under the said interim order which amounts to wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’be court. All the income earned by the Respondents/defendants during the period of subsistence of the interim order of stay granted in OSA No. 29 of 2022 are unlawful and the Respondents/defendants may be directed to immediately deposit the amounts into this Hon’ble court. The Respondents/defendants are liable to pay damages to me towards such unlawful exploitation of the songs despite the aforesaid interim order.
43. It is relevant to mention that the pending other litigations cited supra are related to the sound recordings wherein I have been defending and contesting by taking the stand that my exclusive rights over the sound recordings, where such Sound Recordings do not form part of the cinematograph films, are protected by explicit provisions of the Copyrights Act. Whereas, the present suit pertains to the infringement of my Musical Works and for protection of his rights under Sec. 14 and Sec. 57 of the Act.
44. I therefore submit that pending the final adjudication of title and ownership rights in the connected proceedings, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant appropriate interim and permanent reliefs to protect my subsisting rights and prevent further unauthorized exploitation of his valuable intellectual property.
45. I submit that the acts and conduct of the Respondents/Defendants are malafide dishonest and calculated to cause harm, injury and damages to me. The balance of convenience heavily lies in my favour and against the Respondents/Defendants. There are no equities in favour of the Respondents/Defendants. I have made out a strong prima facie case against the Respondents/Defendants. If the ad interim reliefs as sought for by me are not granted, I will be put to suffer irreparable harm, injury and damages which cannot be compensated in terms of the money.
46. The balance of convenience is in my favour and against the Respondents/Defendants. I have made out a strong prima facie case. There are no equites in favour of the Respondents/Defendants. I am entitled for ad interim and interim reliefs as sought/ prayed for. Unless the reliefs as sought for the interlocutory stage are granted to me, I will be put to suffer an irreparable harm, injury and damages which cannot be compensated in form of money. The Respondents/defendants is already exploiting my works without any right or justification in doing so and despite the interim order passed in the OSA No. 29 of 2022.
For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant interim order restraining the Respondents/Defendants, its agents, servants, or anyone claiming through them, from exploiting, modifying, remastering, distributing, or otherwise making commercial and/or monetary gain out of the Applicant/Plaintiff’s musical works, (barring the sound recordings accompanying the visual recordings forming part of cinematograph films) or any part thereof, without the Applicant/Plaintiff’s express written consent, pending disposal of the above suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and thus render justice.
For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the first respondent/first defendant to deposit 50% of the sums earned through exploitation of the musical works and sound recordings of the songs composed by the plaintiff (so far as such exploitation of sound recording and/or musical work does not accompany as forming part of any cinematograph film) into this Hon’ble court in the above suit towards the applicant/plaintiff’s entitlement of royalty as per Section. 19 (9) and (10) of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, pending disposal of the above suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai |
on this day of September |
2025 and signed his name | Before me,
in my presence. |
Advocate, Chennai
