The battle over who owns the music of some of South India’s most treasured films has been put on hold.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed a decision of the Madras High Court that had revived part of a long-running copyright suit involving the sound recordings of seven films — including the celebrated Salangai Oli and the classical masterpiece Sankarabharanam.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: who controls the audio rights to these iconic soundtracks?
The case pits Saregama India Limited against Sreedevi Video Corporation, with both claiming ownership of the same sound recordings. The catalogue in question spans seven films — Salangai Oli, Saagara Sangamam (Telugu and Malayalam versions), Sankara Bharanam, Seetha Kokila Chiluka, Sithara, and Thayaramma Bangariah — works deeply embedded in South Indian cinematic heritage.
How the Dispute Unfolded
Sreedevi Video Corporation moved court in 2014, asserting that it became the absolute owner of the audio copyrights through two assignment agreements signed in 2008 with Poornodaya Movie Creations and Poornodaya Art Creations. It sought both a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction to restrain Saregama from commercially exploiting the recordings.
Saregama countered with a much older paper trail. According to the company, rights to the recordings were assigned as far back as 1978 and 1979 to Sea Records for a 60-year period. Those rights, it said, were subsequently transferred in 2000 to Saregama — then known as Gramophone Company of India Ltd. — in perpetuity for ₹1.10 crore.
The company also pointed to a cease-and-desist notice issued in 2010, asserting its claim and disputing Sreedevi’s position.
The Limitation Question
In 2022, a Single Judge dismissed Sreedevi’s suit, holding that its claim for a declaration of copyright ownership was filed too late. The right to sue, the court said, had crystallised in 2010 when Saregama asserted its rights. Since the suit was instituted in 2014, it fell outside the three-year limitation period.
On appeal, a Division Bench agreed that the declaration claim was time-barred. However, it took a narrower route: while the ownership declaration could not proceed, the court allowed the case to continue on the limited issue of whether an injunction might still be granted.
That partial revival became the flashpoint.
“You Can’t Separate Title from Injunction,” Saregama Argues
Before the apex court, Saregama argued that an injunction cannot survive independently of a declaration of title in a dispute rooted in ownership. If the declaration is barred by limitation, the company contended, then the injunction — being consequential relief — must fall with it.
To allow otherwise, Saregama submitted, would effectively permit Sreedevi to achieve indirectly what it cannot obtain directly: a determination of copyright ownership despite being time-barred from seeking such a declaration.
The company also maintained that the 2008 assignments relied upon by Sreedevi were legally ineffective, claiming the rights had already been transferred decades earlier to its predecessor. In its view, permitting the injunction claim to proceed would reopen a title issue already extinguished by limitation.
Supreme Court Hits Pause
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has now stayed the High Court’s order that revived the injunction question. The stay halts further proceedings for the time being, placing the entire dispute in suspended animation.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing in April 2026.
For now, the melodies that once defined an era remain at the centre of a legal crescendo — their ownership unresolved, their future exploitation awaiting judicial clarity.
