SC rejects music mastero Ilaiyaraaja's plea to shift copyright suit from Bombay to Madras HC

Hans India

28-07-2025

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by renowned music composer Ilaiyaraaja's company seeking to transfer a copyright dispute involving over 500 of his musical works from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court.
The plea was filed by Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd (IMMPL), which is facing a civil suit initiated by Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt Ltd in the Bombay High Court in 2022.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria heard the matter and declined to grant the transfer, allowing the case to continue in Mumbai.
At the core of the dispute is the copyright ownership of 536 musical works composed by Ilaiyaraaja, one of India's most celebrated music directors, whose body of work spans more than 7,500 songs across 1,500 films.
Sony Music has claimed rights over these compositions through a chain of assignments -- first from Echo Recording Company, then to Oriental Records, and eventually to Sony. Ilaiyaraaja's company, IMMPL, had approached the Supreme Court arguing that 310 out of the 536 works are already the subject of proceedings before the Madras High Court, stemming from a suit filed in 2014 by Ilaiyaraaja against Echo Recording.
In that suit, Ilaiyaraaja had challenged Echo's copyright claims and asserted his own moral and economic rights under the Copyright Act.
The Madras High Court had granted interim relief in 2015 and, in a 2019 judgment, ruled that while Echo retained rights over the sound recordings, Ilaiyaraaja continued to hold special and moral rights over the musical compositions.
It also noted that a 2007 assignment made by Ilaiyaraaja's late wife to Agi Music had expired in 2012.
Following the 2019 ruling, Echo transferred its catalogue to Oriental Records, which subsequently entered into a rights agreement with Sony Music. Based on this acquisition, Sony filed the suit in Bombay in January 2022, seeking to restrain IMMPL from using the 536 works.
IMMPL argued that the Bombay proceedings were largely duplicative of the pending case in Madras and warned of the potential for conflicting judgments. It also pointed out that the Madras proceedings were at an advanced stage, while the Bombay case was still in its early phase.
Further, IMMPL stated that it operates solely out of Chennai and has no business presence in Mumbai. Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the transfer petition, paving the way for the Bombay High Court to proceed with the case.