‘Saat Samundar Paar’ song copyright row: Bombay High Court refuses interim relief to Trimurti Films against Dharma products, Saregama

By an agreement executed between the Trimurti Films and defendant 3 (Saregama India Ltd) on November 14, 1990, the latter was assigned certain limited rights in the sound recordings in the plaintiff’s film for the purpose of making records and music cassette and for certain purposes more particularly, set out in the agreement.

“Prima facie the plaintiffs have failed to make a case that the assignment agreement granted limited assignment in favour of defendant 3 for exploiting the sound recording for making of records and only for that purpose, the underlying musical score could be exploited,” the court said.

Findings

The court observed as far as the balance of convenience was concerned, the music label had been “exploiting the underlying musical score” as seen from the licensing of the musical scores three times in the past.

“It is not denied by the plaintiff that there was no teaser release in December, 2024 and it is no answer to say that the teaser went unnoticed. The plaintiff-company is part of the same industry and it is difficult to accept that the plaintiff was unaware that the remake of the original song is being proposed for use in the upcoming movie,” the order said.

According to the court, even if it was accepted for the sake of arguments that there was no delay on the part of the plaintiff, it couldn’t be disputed that production of a cinematograph movie involves substantial investment.

“There was no material on record to show that prima facie the subject song can be deleted without causing any harm to the script or that it is not an integral part of the script. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the defendants and in event, the ad-interim relief is granted, the defendants would suffer grave prejudice,” the court held.

Trimurti’s case

It was argued that the right to use the sound recordings or works including the lyrics or the tune is with plaintiff and it continues to own the right to exploit the sound recording of the original song “Saat Samundar Paar” by incorporating in any cinematograph film.

Senior advocate Ravi Kadam, representing the plaintiff, submitted that the assignment of copyright was limited to the sound recordings for the purpose of making records and video cassettes and only for beneficial enjoyment of that right, the underlying musical work could be exploited.

He argued that the agreement does not speak of any consideration to be paid for assignment of underlying musical score indicates that the underlying musical works could not be exploited independently.

Rival arguments

Makers of the upcoming movie, Dharma Products, argued that the music label had in the past granted license to third-party for use and for adaptation of the said song which featured in the movie titled ‘KICK’ released in 2014 and in the web series ‘Hai Junoon’ which released in 2025.

It was stated that on December 25, 2024, the teaser of the film was released which featured the opening background score of the subject song and therefore, there is delay which would disentitle the plaintiff to the injunctive relief.

Senior advocate Dr Birendra Saraf, who argued for Dharma, submitted that while considering the grant of ad-interim relief, the balance of convenience plays an important factor.

Music label Saregama, on the other hand, referred to the clauses in the agreement, indicating its ownership of all copyright in the sound recordings, literary works and musical works.

Senior advocate Virendra Tulzapurkar, for Saregama, argued that the plea suffered from an “inordinate delay” and laches and acquiescence and on this count alone, the application should be dismissed.

He submitted that his client had already exploited its right in the manner alleged to be restricted/unpermitted by the plaintiff, in the movie “KICK” and “CADBURY” advertisement, both released in 2015, besides the movie “Jabariya Jodi” released on August 9, 2019.

“There is an inordinate delay as the agreement is of the year 1990, and after a period of 35 years, the plaintiff is questioning the rights assigned under the said agreement,” he contended.

Dharma was represented by the DSK legal team comprising advocates Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra,  Anaheeta Verma and Pratyusha Dhodda besides chief legal officer Rakhee Bajpai.