IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) CS (COMM.DIV) NO. OF 2025 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. …PLAINTIFF Versus 1) M/s. Sony Music Entertainment India Private Ltd,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
CS (COMM.DIV) NO. OF 2025
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja,
New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. …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. …DEFENDANTS
PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VI RULE 1 OF OS RULES READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND SECTIONS 17, 51, 55, AND 62 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
The Plaintiff above-named respectfully submits as follows:
1. The Plaintiff is Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, son of Mr. Ramasamy, aged about 82 years, residing at New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.
The address for service of all notices and processes on the Plaintiff is that of his counsels Mr. K.Thyagarajan and Mr. A.Saravanan, having office at Old No. 162, New No. 344, 2nd Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600001.
2. The first defendant is Sony Music Entertainment India Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, having its registered office at 2nd Floor, First International Financial Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex Road, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra-400098.
The second defendant is Echo Recording Company Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Managing Director, having its registered office at 62, Aspiran Garden 2nd Street, Kilpauk, Chenna-600010.
The third defendant is Oriental Records, Represented by its Authorised signatory, 11 Creekside Court, Secaucus NJ 07094 USA
The addresses for service of all notices and processes on the defendants are
the same as stated above.
3. The Plaintiff, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, is universally celebrated under the honorific titles “Isaignani” (Musical Genius) and revered as “Maestro” of music, reflecting his unparalleled stature in the world of music not only in Tamil Nadu, India, but also globally. He is 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 his meticulous involvement in every aspect of music production, the Plaintiff is responsible for the orchestration, arrangement of instruments, writing of notations, conducting of orchestras, creation and producing of the sound recordings, and balancing of tracks. His deep expertise extends to penning lyrics and lending his own voice as a singer. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja is widely regarded as a living legend and creative genius, whose contributions are integral to the story of Indian musical artistry, not only within the Tamil, South Indian, Indian film and music industry but also on the world stage, with a legacy defined by numerous, impeccable, and unparalleled records. His innovative and creative approach and mastery over both Indian and Western musical idioms have earned him recognition as one of the greatest music composers in the history of world of music.
4. The Plaintiff’s career is distinguished by a prodigious and truly unparalleled body of work in global music history. He has 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 his extraordinary achievements in composition, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja has authored lyrics for over 1,500 songs and rendered his vocal/voice as a playback singer in more than 1,000 recordings, accomplishments unmatched by any of his peers (past and present). His mastery extends to the creation of background scores, with his original compositions exceeding an astounding 150,000 minutes of continuous music. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s 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 his composition “Rakkamma Kaiya Thattu” from the hugely popular film ‘Thalapathi’ (1991) as the fourth most popular song of all time.
5. The Plaintiffis widely celebrated for his transformative approach to music, seamlessly blending Indian folk traditions and traditional instrumentation with the sophistication of Western classical techniques. In 1986, he became the first Indian composer to record film songs using computer technology, a pioneering achievement for the Tamil film Vikram, produced by Raj Kamal Films International under the stewardship of the distinguished actor Shri Kamal Haasan. As a visionary innovator, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja was among the earliest Indian film composers to incorporate Western classical harmonies and complex string arrangements into Indian cinema. He further distinguished himself as the first South Asian to compose a full symphony, a milestone firmly established by his Symphony No. 1, titled Valiant, which was composed and recorded with the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra in London in March 2025, an unprecedented accomplishment by an Asian artist in the global music arena. In 2006, he broke new ground with Thiruvasagam in Symphony, recognized as the first Indian oratorio, wherein classical Tamil poetry was set to Western symphonic form.
6. Notably, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s collaborations, particularly with legendary playback singers Dr. S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (SPB) and S. Janaki, are regarded as record-setting in the global music industry; Dr. SPB rendered more than 1,000 songs and S. Janaki sang approximately 3,000 songs under his composition, numbers unmatched by any other playback singer-composer partnerships in the world. Beyond these prodigious associations, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja has played a pivotal role in expanding the artistic scope of Indian cinema by introducing celebrated actors, such as Super Star Rajinikanth, Ulaga Nayagan Kamal Haasan, and Kannada luminary and legendary Shri. Rajkumar, as playback singers, thus fostering novel artistic collaborations and enriching the expressive depth of film music. Over his illustrious 50-year career, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja has introduced and nurtured many singing talent, including the debut of artists who went on to become leading voices in the industry, regarded as unique, unprecedented. His influence in shaping the landscape of Indian playback singing is therefore widely considered a unique and likely record-setting achievement within the music industry.
7. The plaintiff’s 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 him with five National Film Awards for Best Music Direction and Background Score, establishing his pre-eminence in Indian cinema music. Amongst many other, his 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 his distinguished service to the nation through arts, music, creativity and performances, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja 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 his 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 him with the Centenary Award for Lifetime Achievement at the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in 2015, and he holds honorary doctorates from various esteemed universities. These accolades collectively affirm Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s standing as one of India’s most distinguished cultural ambassadors and musical luminaries.
8. In a 2013 poll conducted by CNN celebrating 100 Years of Indian cinema, the Plaintiff was voted as the All-time Greatest Film-Music Director of India. In 2014, American World Cinema portal “Taste of Cinema” placed the Plaintiff 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.
9. The Plaintiff possesses profound expertise in both Indian and Western classical music, which empowers him to independently envision and compose fully realized musical works. His 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, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, invariably and most number of times, initiates and completes his compositions autonomously, ensuring each piece is an original and self-sustained creation.
10. Throughout his illustrious career, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s distinctive and autonomous approach to musical composition and during the entire workflow, he exercises 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/s, is managed directly by Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, with no external interference or prescribed instructions. This singular approach not only amplifies the integrity and individuality of his musical works but also sets him apart as a composer, arranger, conductor, and producer of such musical works who assumes complete and independent stewardship over every aspect of his music’s creation and realization.
11. 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 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja throughout his illustrious career, underscoring his singular mastery and authoritative command over every phase of his musical creations. They acknowledge that Dr. Ilaiyaraaja singularly conceives, develops, and executes his compositions with full creative independence without external interference or prescribed instructions.
12. As such, the Plaintiff Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s 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 his musical works, he has consistently asserted and exercised his authorship and ownership, retaining absolute rights and titles, including moral rights, over his original compositions and connected sound recordings. His 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 his works are not created at the instance, direction, or under the control of any producer, but rather emerge from his complete creative autonomy, basis only certain inputs from the director(s). The Plaintiff Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s control extends from initial composition to final production, synchronisation into a audio/visual form, absolutely with no external interference or direction. This fact has been attested by numerous directors and collaborators. To date, there exists 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 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja has parted with the title, ownership, or any aspect of his moral rights in his original musical works. This enduring record underscores his unequivocal status as the sole and original owner of his musical legacy, with all rights intact and unencumbered.
13. It is a well-established and undisputed fact that, in the creative practice of Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, the genesis of his musical works unfailingly begins with the exclusive and independent act of music composition. Dr. Ilaiyaraaja singularly conceptualizes, writes, and completes his musical pieces at his 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.
14. 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.
15. Consequently, in Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s 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 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja originates, produces, and oversees his body of work ensures that his 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.
16. As the author, the Plaintiff has always maintained that ownership and rights are protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. Per Section 17, he is the first owner of his works in the absence of any written assignment to the contrary. Under Section 14, he holds the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, and communicate his works to the public. Crucially, he possesses inalienable moral rights under Section 57, which empower him to protect the integrity of his compositions from any distortion, mutilation, or modification that would be prejudicial to his 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 the Plaintiff’s moral rights and prohibited the unauthorized online use and modification of his compositions.
17. It is a well-established fact that numerous broadcasters, television networks, and public media, digital platforms routinely utilize the plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff as the rightful owner and creator of these works. The failure to secure such proper authorization constitutes unauthorized usage and infringement of the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights over his musical compositions and sound recordings. Despite the widespread commercial use of his works across various media platforms, many such usages occur without obtaining the requisite licenses or permissions from Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, thereby violating his fundamental rights as the original creator and copyright holder of these musical works.
18. The Plaintiff states that the first Defendant is exploiting the Plaintiff’s 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 Defendant has been commercially exploiting the Plaintiff’s 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 Defendant is being conducted without payment of the statutorily mandated equal share of royalties to the Plaintiff 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. The Plaintiff is informed and reliably given to understand that the first Defendant is generating substantial commercial revenue from such digital exploitation while denying the Plaintiff of his rightful share of royalties.
19. The Plaintiff further states that the first 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 the Plaintiff’s original musical works without authorization. The first Defendant has created and published various compilations, jukeboxes, and modified versions of the Plaintiff’s 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 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 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 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.
20. The aforesaid acts of the first Defendant, who are claiming to be the successor in title from the previously defunct company, Echo Recording Private Limited – the second 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 Dr. Ilaiyaraaja’s moral rights as a composer and recognized his entitlement to prevent unauthorized exploitation of his musical works in forms that prejudice his honor and reputation. The said judgment specifically acknowledged the Plaintiff’s 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 his honor or reputation. The first Defendant’s continued digital exploitation, modification, and remastering of the Plaintiff’s musical works despite this clear judicial pronouncement demonstrates wilful infringement and contempt of the established legal position.
21. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that his 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. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he has not assigned, alienated, sold, transferred, or otherwise parted with his 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.
22. 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 the Plaintiff. The second defendant herein, in certain instances, through the producers of the respective movies, and with the oral consent of the Plaintiff, obtained licenses solely for the purpose of manufacture and sale of audio cassettes and compact discs containing the audio songs composed by the Plaintiff. 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 Defendant herein. Significantly, no rights for exploiting the songs in any future mode of streaming were ever granted to the second defendant either by the producers of the respective movies or by the plaintiff herein.
23. The Plaintiff subsequently became aware that the second defendant had begun commercially exploiting the Plaintiff’s 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, the Plaintiff 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 defendant herein.
24. In the said suit C.S. No. 625 of 2014, the Plaintiff has 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.
25. On 4th June 2019, a judgment and decree was rendered in the said Suit, stating inter alia that Echo (the predecessor of the first 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.
26. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by this particular portion of the judgement, the Plaintiff has 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 has been 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.
27. Notwithstanding this position, the first 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 defendant. The first 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.
28. It is pertinent to reiterate that, until such time as the defendants establish, through judicial proceedings currently pending in Chennai and Mumbai, that they possess validly derived and judicially recognised rights over the Plaintiff’s musical works and sound recordings, they hold no lawful right or title thereto. In these circumstances, the continued, unauthorized exploitation of the Plaintiff’s musical works by the defendants, without his 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 the Plaintiff’s subsisting rights.
29. It is further pertinent to highlight that the Plaintiff 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.
30. Notably, the first Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Echo Recordings Private Limited, never at any point in time published, released, or otherwise exploited the Plaintiff’s musical works in the digital environment or medium. It was only upon and subsequent to the first Defendant’s acquisition of purported rights from Echo Recordings Private Limited, in or around the year 2022, the first Defendant commenced digital publication and exploitation of the musical works and underlying sound recordings authored by the Plaintiff.
31. The first defendant claimed to have obtained rights through the 3rd defendant by way of agreement entered in February 2020. The first defendant claims that the second defendant had executed an assignment agreement dated 02.02.2020 in favour of the 3rd defendant and that subsequently, the first defendant had executed a Catalogue acquisition agreement dated 14.02.2020 with the third defendant. The alleged agreement dated 14.02.2020 was claimed by the first defendant for the first time after January 2022. It is highly relevant to note that the signatories of both the second 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 defendants are one and the same.
32. It is pertinent to note that the first defendant had negotiated with the plaintiff through the other director of his 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 the plaintiff. There are ample evidences showing the negotiations between the officials of the first defendant company with the plaintiff for acquiring the rights over the songs. In all the in person discussions, email communications and in the communications through Whatsapp, the first defendant had not uttered anything amount the purported agreement entered with the second defendant. In fact, the defendant had knowledge about the role of the second defendant in these songs only through the negotiations with the plaintiff and his associate Mr. Sriram. The plaintiff reasonably suspects that after obtaining the necessary details from the plaintiff and Mr. Sriram, the first defendant had created a back dated agreement as if the same was entered with the second defendant.
33. It is highly relevant to state that the purported signatory of the second defendant in the alleged agreement dated 14.02.2020 entered between the first and second 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 defendant has not derived any lawful rights through the said Agreement. It is just and necessary that the 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.
34. Most telling of all is the Defendant’s decision to enter into a Confidentiality Agreement (CA) dated 18th October 2021 with the Plaintiff, expressly contemplating a future catalogue acquisition agreement. Such conduct is entirely incompatible with any assertion of pre-existing ownership. Had the 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 the Plaintiff’s Company and initiate for further negotiations and personal meetings with the Plaintiff, let alone a CA setting the stage for eventual formalization of rights. The CA, viewed against the Plaintiff’s extensive engagement and the Defendant’s failure to disclose its alleged rights during critical negotiations, stands as unequivocal evidence that the 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 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.
35. Further, it is egregious that the Defendant derives economic benefit and leverages the fruits of the Plaintiff’s 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 the Plaintiff’s lawful rights.
36. It is only just and proper that these impugned agreements are subjected to thorough forensic examination and judicial scrutiny before the Defendant is allowed to undertake further action or exploit the Plaintiff’s works. The entire factual landscape, deeply coloured by procedural, substantive, and behavioural inconsistencies, warrants the declaration that the first defendant do not derive any right through the purported agreement dated 14.02.2020 entered with the third defendant. Unless and until valid title is established, no Defendant should be permitted to usurp the Plaintiff’s creative legacy.
37. The Plaintiff’s 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.
38. The first 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 the Plaintiff, and in clear disregard of the Plaintiff’s subsisting rights and the pending judicial determination of title by this Hon’ble Court.
39. The Plaintiff further would like to bring to this hon’ble court that parallel proceedings have been initiated by the Defendant in Mumbai, wherein the Plaintiff has, 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 Defendant successfully establishes through proper judicial adjudication that it has derived valid, legal, and subsisting title or rights over the Plaintiff’s musical works and associated sound recordings, the Defendants hold no enforceable title, right, or interest whatsoever in the said works.
40. Notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the Plaintiff continues to enjoy and exercise his 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, the Plaintiff further submits 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.
41. In the circumstances, the first Defendant’s ongoing unauthorized exploitation, distribution, and commercial use of the Plaintiff’s musical works, without obtaining the Plaintiff’s 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 the Plaintiff’s works in the digital medium for the first time only after 2022, contrary to historical industry practice and in disregard of the Plaintiff’s 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.
42. The Plaintiff has identified extensive evidence of first Defendant’s unauthorized exploitation across multiple digital platforms. On YouTube, Defendant’s (Sony Music South’s) official channel has published numerous compilations and modified versions of the Plaintiff’s 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 Defendant’s systematic and organized infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright and moral rights through digital channels, with each post and publication constituting a separate act of infringement.
43. The first Defendant’s digital exploitation strategy involves the unauthorized commercial use of the Plaintiff’s 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 the consent of the plaintiff and in violation of his statutory rights under the Copyright Act. The first Defendant’s actions not only infringe upon the Plaintiff’s economic rights but also violate his moral rights by modifying, adapting, and presenting his works in contexts and formats that may not align with his artistic vision and integrity as the original creator. The first Defendant has been generating advertising revenue, subscription fees, and other commercial benefits from the digital distribution of the Plaintiff’s works while refusing to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s rights or provide appropriate compensation. This commercial exploitation includes the creation of branded content, promotional campaigns, and revenue-generating digital products using the Plaintiff’s musical works as the primary content, all without the Plaintiff’s 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.
44. Despite ongoing legal proceedings and clear judicial pronouncements regarding the Plaintiff’s rights, the first 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 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 Defendant’s refusal to cease unauthorized exploitation or enter into proper licensing arrangements with the Plaintiff demonstrates bad faith and deliberate infringement.
45. It is highly relevant to mention that the 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 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 defendants without any rightful title and particularly during the period of subsistence of the interim order of stay granted in OSA No. 29 of 2022 are unlawful and the defendants may be directed to immediately deposit the amounts into this Hon’ble court. The defendants are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff towards such unlawful exploitation of the songs despite the interim order.
46. The Defendant is unlawfully dealing with the copyrighted works of the Plaintiff for unlawful gains. The Defendant has earned unlawful money from infringing and by dealing with the copyrighted work of the Plaintiff. The Defendant have caused tremendous damages to the Plaintiff by its unlawful acts. The Plaintiff reserves the right and craves leave to make claim of damages as and when the Defendant discloses the true and correct facts and figures of amounts earned by them in the proceedings and after assessing the further damages caused by the Defendant.
47. It is relevant to mention that the pending other litigations cited supra are related to the sound recordings wherein the plaintiff herein has been defending and contesting by taking the stand that his 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 the plaintiff’s Musical Works and for protection of his rights under Sec. 14 and Sec. 57 of the Act.
48. The cause of action for the present suit arose at Chennai where the Plaintiff, as the composer of the said song in dispute has actually composed the songs, securing all rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, during April 2025 when the plaintiff came to be aware that the said musical works of the plaintiff have been wrongfully exploited by the defendant, further when the plaintiff discovered that the movie ‘Good Bad Ugly’ together with the musical works of the plaintiff being exploited without authorization on various digital platforms, including cinema theatres, streaming services, etc., when the Plaintiff issued a legal notice to both Defendants on 11.04.2025, demanding cessation of all unauthorized usage, an account of profits, and compensation for damages incurred, yet the Defendants continued their infringing activities, when the Plaintiff sent a follow-up notice on 10.01.2025 due to the Defendants’ persistent unauthorized exploitation, yet they failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s legitimate demands, and when the Defendants continued their unlawful activities, they caused ongoing financial loss and reputational harm to the Plaintiff, making the cause of action continuing in nature.
49. The Plaintiff resides and carries on his profession in Chennai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The movie produced and released by the defendant by incorporating the musical works of the plaintiff has been exhibited for public viewing at various places including in Chennai. Therefore, this suit is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiff submits that the Commercial Division of this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter under 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with proviso I to section 7 of the same Act. The dispute in the present suit arises due to the unauthorized use by the Defendant and infringement of copyright of the songs composed by the plaintiff namely “Otha Rubayum Tharen”, “Ilamai Idho Idho” and “En Jodi Manja Kuruvi”. Furthermore, the infringing content is being streamed from Chennai
50. The Plaintiff states that there is no other suit filed or pending in any other court for the same cause of action or for the same reliefs against the defendants herein. Along with the present plaint, the Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for urgent ad-interim/ interim relief in the present proceedings. Therefore, Pre-Institution Mediation proceedings under Section-12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are not required to be undertaken and the present proceedings can be taken up by this Hon’ble Court.
51. The Plaintiff values the above suit for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction as follows:
a. Declare that the musical works composed by the Plaintiff are independent creations and constitute separate and distinct works under copyright law, wholly independent of the underlying sound recordings into which they may be incorporated for the purposes of cinematograph films and that the copyright in such musical works vests exclusively with the Plaintiff as the original author, first owner, and continuing copyright holder thereof : Rs.
Court fee paid thereon u/s.25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955 : Rs.
b. Declare that the first defendant has acquired no rights, title, or interest whatsoever in the Plaintiff’s musical works and sound recordings through the aforementioned invalid purported agreements dated 2nd February 2020 allegedly executed between the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant and dated 14th February 2020 allegedly executed between the 3rd defendant and the first Defendant;
Court fee paid thereon u/s.25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955
c. To declare that the Defendants have no right, title, or interest in respect of the said musical works (barring the sound recordings accompanying the visual recordings forming part of cinematograph films) except to the extent as may be expressly permitted in writing by the Plaintiff; : Rs.
Court fee paid thereon u/s. 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955 : Rs.
d. Permanently restrain the Defendants, its agents, servants, or anyone claiming through it, from exploiting, modifying, remastering, distributing, or otherwise using the Plaintiff’s musical works, (barring the sound recordings accompanying the visual recordings forming part of cinematograph films) or any part thereof, without the Plaintiff’s express written consent; : Rs.
Court fee paid thereon u/s. 27 (c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955 Rs.
e. Direct the Defendant to render a true and faithful account of all revenues, receipts and profits derived from the exploitation of the Plaintiff’s works from 18.02.2022 and to pay to the Plaintiff all amounts found due, together with interest and costs; : Rs.
Court fee paid thereon u/s. 35 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955 Rs.
f. To declare that the Plaintiff, as author and creator, hold joint rights in the sound recording of the songs composed by him as regards entitlement of royalty, by virtue of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012; : Rs.
Court fee paid thereon u/s. 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act XIV, 1955 Rs.
PRAYER
The Plaintiff further prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree as follows:
(a) Declare that the musical works composed by the Plaintiff are independent creations and constitute separate and distinct works under copyright law, wholly independent of the underlying sound recordings into which they may be incorporated for the purposes of cinematograph films and that the copyright in such musical works vests exclusively with the Plaintiff as the original author, first owner, and continuing copyright holder thereof;
(b) Declare that the first defendant has acquired no rights, title, or interest whatsoever in the Plaintiff’s musical works and sound recordings through the aforementioned invalid purported agreements dated 2nd February 2020 allegedly executed between the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant and dated 14th February 2020 allegedly executed between the 3rd defendant and the first Defendant;
(c) To declare that the Defendants have no right, title, or interest in respect of the said musical works (barring the sound recordings accompanying the visual recordings forming part of cinematograph films) except to the extent as may be expressly permitted in writing by the Plaintiff;
(d) Permanently restrain the Defendants, its agents, servants, or anyone claiming through it, from exploiting, modifying, remastering, distributing, or otherwise using the Plaintiff’s musical works, (barring the sound recordings accompanying the visual recordings forming part of cinematograph films) or any part thereof, without the Plaintiff’s express written consent;
(e) Direct the Defendants to render a true and faithful account of all revenues, receipts and profits derived from the exploitation of the Plaintiff’s works from 18.02.2022 and to pay to the Plaintiff all amounts found due, together with interest and costs;
(f) To declare that the Plaintiff, as author and creator, hold joint rights in the sound recording of the songs composed by him as regards entitlement of royalty, by virtue of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.
(g) Costs of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff; and/or
(h) Any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Dated at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, the Plaintiff herein do hereby verify that what is stated in the aforesaid paras are correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and declare the same to be true.
Verified at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1 (1) OF CPC, amended Act 4/16
Sl. No. Date Description of Document
1. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work D.I.S.C.O.
by the first defendant -Printed copy
2. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work VALAIOSAI
by the first defendant -Printed copy
3. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work AASAI NOORU
VAGAI by the first defendant -Printed copy
4. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work THATHOM
THALANGU by the first defendant -Printed copy
5. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work MUTHUMANI
CHUDARE VAA by the first defendant -Printed copy
6. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work KATHALIN
DEEPAM ONDRU by the first defendant -Printed copy
7. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work KODIYILE
MALLIYAPOO by the first defendant -Printed copy
8. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work RAJA RAJA
CHOZHAN by the first defendant -Printed copy
9. — Screenshot showing unlawful exploitation
of plaintiff’s musical work KADHAL
KAVIDHAIGAL by the first defendant -Printed copy
10. — Pendrive containing the videos of unlawful
exploitation of plaintiff’s musical work by
the first defendant -Original
11. 18.10.2021 Confidentiality agreement entered between
the plaintiff and the first defendant
12. 18.02.2022 Interim order granted in OSA No. 29 of 2022
—————————————————————————————————-
Dated at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1 (6) OF CPC
Sl. No. Date Description of Document
1 02.02.2020 Agreement entered between the second
defendant and the third defendant.
2 14.02.2020 Agreement entered between the third
defendant and the first defendant.
—————————————————————————————————-
NIL AT PRESENT
Dated at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, the Plaintiff herein do hereby verify that what is stated in the aforesaid list of documents are correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and declare the same to be true
Verified at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14-A OF CPC
Name and address of the Plaintiff:
Dr. Ilaiyaraaja,
New No. 2C, Old No. 38, Murugesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 17
Address for services Mr. K.Thyagarajan Mr. A.Saravanan and S.Magimairaj, having office at Old No. 162, New No. 344, 2nd Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600001,
Name and address of the Defendants
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
Address for service As state above
Dated at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Ilaiyaraaja, the Plaintiff herein do hereby verify that what is stated in the aforesaid statement of address are correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and declare the same to be true.
Verified at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
MEMO OF VALUATION
Sl. No, Relief Sought Value Court Fee paid
1. Prayer (a)
2. Prayer (b)
3. Prayer (c)
4 Prayer (d)
5. Prayer (e)
6. Prayer (f)
Total
Dated at Chennai on this the day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
