Delhi High Court Dismisses Ilaiyaraaja's Review Plea In 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Copyright Dispute

The Delhi High Court has dismissed composer Ilaiyaraaja's review petition against its May 21, 2026 judgment that upheld Saregama India Ltd.'s copyright claim over the sound recording of the iconic song En Iniya Pon Nilave from the Tamil film Moodu Pani, holding that no ground for review was made out.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected the plea after hearing Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar for Ilaiyaraaja.

The dispute began after Saregama sued Vels Film International Ltd (VFIL) in January 2025 over the proposed use of a recreated version of En Iniya Pon Nilave in the film Aghathiyaa.

VFIL relied on a licence agreement executed with Ilaiyaraaja in March 2023. Ilaiyaraaja's case was that, as composer, he retained rights over the musical work and could permit its adaptation.

A Single Judge had granted relief against VFIL's use of the song, subject to conditions. Ilaiyaraaja's appeal against that order was dismissed by the Division Bench on May 21.

In that judgment, the Division Bench held that while Ilaiyaraaja owned the copyright in the musical component of the song, the copyright in the sound recording vested with the producer of the film and had subsequently been assigned to Saregama's predecessor, Gramophone Company of India Ltd.

The Bench held that Ilaiyaraaja could not have licensed rights in the sound recording to VFIL, and that VFIL's use of the recreated version without Saregama's authorisation amounted to infringement.

Seeking review, Sukumar argued that the Division Bench's findings on sound recording rights went beyond the scope of the controversy argued before both the Single Judge and the appellate court.

She contended that Saregama's pleadings focused on the musical and literary works and that VFIL had not used Saregama's original sound recording.

Her central argument was that since the Division Bench had recognised Ilaiyaraaja's ownership of the musical work, his appeal ought to have succeeded at least to that extent.

Referring to the earlier judgment, she argued: “Ilaiyaraaja was therefore entitled to contract with any third party for use or for adaptation of the musical work contained in the disputed song, which is the musical component thereof.”

The Bench rejected the argument.

It held that the distinction sought to be drawn between “recreation” and “adaptation” was “merely a distinction without a difference”.

“In any event, that cannot be made subject matter of a review petition, as it reflects a view that we have taken, which cannot be revisited in review,” the court said.

The court said the review plea ignored the fact that the Single Judge had already dealt with ownership of sound recording rights and held that Ilaiyaraaja could not license those rights to a third party.

The court also noted that the definition of a cinematograph film under copyright law includes the sound recordings accompanying the film.

Saregama also argued that the operative outcome of the Single Judge's order remained unchanged, as VFIL had been allowed to use the song only upon depositing Rs 30 lakh with the Registrar General, failing which it would stand injuncted.

Accepting that no review ground was made out, the Bench dismissed the petition