How much evidence is enough to establish copyright ownership at the interim stage? Unpacking the Delhi High Court’s latest decision in the Saregama-Ilaiyaraaja case, Umeshwari Ranjan explains how the decision offers an important answer, while leaving some questions unanswered about assignment validity, irreparable injury, and the scope of decades-old rights in the age of digital exploitation. Umeshwari is a third-year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, and an IDIA Scholar. Her academic interests lie in Intellectual Property Law, particularly copyright and trademark law. She was also a participant at the SpicyIP Summer School 2026.
How Much Evidence Is Enough? The Evidentiary Threshold for Interim Injunctions in Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja
By Umeshwari Ranjan
Recently, the Delhi High Court (“Court”) made absolute interim injunctions in two connected suits, Saregama India Limited v. Mr. Ilaiyaraaja and Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors. which were heard and decided together as they involved overlapping issues. The dispute concerned the competing claims by Saregama and Ilaiyaraaja over the ownership and commercial exploitation of copyright in several sound recordings composed by Ilaiyaraaja. The Saregama v. Ilaiyaraaja suit concerned sound recordings, literary, and musical works in 134 films which were uploaded by Ilaiyaraaja in different streaming platforms. The Saregama v Black Madras suit concerned unauthorized use of the song “Naguva Nayana” in the Kannada movie “Mask”. Ilaiyaraaja remains a central figure in this dispute as well since the makers of Mask alleged that they had signed a license with the composer to use the sound recording. Ruling in favor of the producers Saregama, the High Court reiterated (see here and here) that the producer of the film is the owner of the sound recording created for the film. In this post, I’ll be restricting my commentary on the findings in Saregama India Limited v. Ilaiyaraaja as it contains the Court’s substantive discussion on ownership, chain of title and the evidentiary basis for granting the interim injunction, on which the connected decision in Saregama India Limited v. Black Madras Films & Ors. largely rests.
The Court restrained Ilaiyaraaja from commercially exploiting the disputed recordings pending trial after finding that Saregama had established a prima facie case based on assignment deeds, decades of commercial exploitation, and royalty records maintained by the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS).
The case raises a broader question concerning the evidentiary threshold that a copyright claimant must satisfy before obtaining an interim injunction. In copyright disputes, a claimant seeking to enforce rights must ordinarily establish an unbroken chain of title from the original owner through valid assignments or other recognised modes of transfer. Even though the Copyright Act, 1957 does not expressly use the expression “chain of title”, the above arrangement was recognised by the Calcutta High Court in Saregama Ltd. v. The New Digital Media & Ors.
The Legal Framework Governing Ownership
Before the Court, Saregama relied on assignment deeds executed by the producers, its long-standing commercial exploitation of the works, and IPRS records to assert ownership over the disputed sound recordings. Ilaiyaraaja, on the other hand, challenged the validity and scope of those assignments and disputed Saregama’s claim to exclusive rights in the recordings.
The Court first referred to the Division Bench decision in Mr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited and the earlier Single Judge decision in Saregama India Ltd. v. Vels Film International Ltd., both concerning ownership of copyright in cinematograph films, sound recording, and underlying musical works created before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Division Bench in Mr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited clarified that under Section 17, read with Sections 2(d)(ii), 2(d)(v), 2(f) and Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, the composer is the first owner of the copyright in the underlying musical work, whereas the producer is the first owner of the copyright in the cinematograph film and the accompanying sound recording. Against this legal backdrop, the central issue before the Court was whether Saregama had demonstrated a sufficient prima facie chain of title from the original producers through the assignment deeds relied upon by it, since its claim to ownership of the disputed sound recordings depended upon the validity of those assignments.
Establishing a Prima Facie Chain of Rights
The Court correctly observed that an interim hearing should not become a “mini trial” and therefore refrained from undertaking a detailed examination of the validity of the assignment deeds. Nevertheless relied on those deeds, together with uninterrupted commercial exploitation of nearly thirty years, the presumption under Section 55(2) arising from decades-old inlay cards, and IPRS royalty records, to conclude that Saregama had established a prima facie case.
The Court declined to examine whether the assignments complied with Section 18 and Section 19, holding that these questions required trial, while relying on their long-standing commercial acceptance and the absence of any challenge from the original producers. Although this undoubtedly strengthens Saregama’s evidentiary case, commercial acceptance cannot replace statutory compliance. As discussed in earlier posts (see Here and Here), Ilaiyaraaja litigation has pointed out, producer ownership ultimately comes from the Copyright Act and a valid assignment, not merely from decades of uninterrupted commercial exploitation. The more significant question, therefore, is whether the Court’s prima facie enquiry should have engaged more closely with the statutory validity of the assignments before treating them as part of Saregama’s chain of rights.
Further, Section 55(2) creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the person whose name appears on published copies of the work. However, it does not eliminate the need to examine the legal basis of ownership where the validity of the assignment itself is challenged. This arguably blurs the distinction between evidence supporting ownership and proof of ownership.
Furthermore, the Court relied on IPRS records showing Saregama as the “Owner” and Ilaiyaraaja as the “Composer” as corroborative material supporting Saregama’s prima facie case. However, Sections 33 and Section 35 merely govern the licensing and royalty administration functions of copyright societies, not adjudication of title. The judgment therefore leaves open the broader question of whether copyright society records merely corroborate ownership claims or whether they can significantly strengthen a claimant’s prima facie case in their own right.
Applying the Three-Fold Test for Interim Injunctions
It also spends relatively little time discussing the well-established requirements for granting an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must independently establish three requirements: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Each of these requirements must be examined separately.
While the Court held that Saregama had established a prima facie case, its discussion of the remaining two requirements: balance of convenience and irreparable injury is comparatively brief. Rather than independently examining the prejudice likely to be caused to each party, the Court appears to have treated these requirements as largely flowing from its prima facie findings. Further, the judgment does not explain why Saregama could not have been adequately protected through monetary remedies, including damages, or an account of profits under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, if Saregama ultimately succeeded at trial. This question assumes particular significance because the dispute concerns ongoing commercial exploitation of the recordings, including through digital platforms that maintain detailed records of usage and royalty payments. The availability of such records may have warranted a closer examination of whether the alleged injury was truly irreparable.
The Unanswered Question of Digital Exploitation
Finally, Ilaiyaraaja’s counsel argued that many of the assignments were executed when exploitation was limited to physical formats such as gramophone records and cassettes, decades before digital streaming became commercially significant. The second proviso to Section 18(1) provides that assignments do not extend to new modes of exploitation unless expressly agreed. The Court ultimately granted the injunction on the basis of Saregama’s prima facie chain of title and supporting documentary material.
Nevertheless, the issue is worth noting because disputes concerning the application of decades-old assignments to contemporary modes of digital exploitation are increasingly arising in copyright litigation involving older works. Similar questions have recently surfaced before the Delhi High Court in cases concerning OTT and digital dissemination rights in ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ case. Although the Court has not said anything about it at the interim stage, recognising its relevance would have strengthened the judgment given the centrality of those assignments to the dispute, especially after the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 strengthened authors’ continuing royalty rights (see Here ; Here). Whether rights acquired through decades-old assignments cover contemporary streaming and digital dissemination therefore remains a question that may assume greater significance at trial.
Conclusion
The dispute in this case may ultimately be resolved at trial, but the issues it raises extend beyond these parties. At its core, the judgment raises an important question about the evidentiary threshold required for interim copyright relief where ownership itself is contested. It also highlights the need for a more careful examination of irreparable injury in an era where digital exploitation often generates detailed records of use and revenue. How courts assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in such disputes will shape the evidentiary threshold that copyright claimants must satisfy before obtaining interim injunctions in ownership disputes.
