INTRODUCTION

Saregama India Limited, originally established as The Gramophone Company of India (HMV) in 1901, lays claim to the oldest and most expansive music catalogue in the country. Its holdings span recordings and literary and musical works across the Indian subcontinent and in numerous regional languages, especially Bengali. The company, now part of the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, owns perpetual, worldwide rights to its audio assets evidenced not only by assignment agreements and master recording plates, but also through album inlay cards prominently marked with the copyright symbols © and ℗, signaling clear authorship under Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that ‘’Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13, a cinematograph film or sound recording, a name purporting to be that of the author, or the publisher, as the case may be, of that work, appears on copies of the work as published, or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be’’.

THE INFRINGEMENT UNFOLDS (2015–2018)

The dispute began in earnest in 2015, when Saregama sent a cease-and-desist notice to Sky B (Bangla) Pvt Ltd, which operates the Bengali television channel “Aakash Aath,” for unauthorized broadcasting of its copyrighted music. Sky B initially responded by disputing ownership, then failed to produce title deeds or participate in settlement discussions, demonstrating what the court later deemed intentional non-cooperation 

EARLY COURT INTERVENTION IN CALCUTTA (FEB 2020)

With infringement continuing, Saregama approached the Calcutta High Court in early 2020. The court granted an interim injunction in February, recognizing that Saregama had made a strong prima facie case under Sections 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 states that  ‘’Where, in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 13, a cinematograph film or sound recording, a name purporting to be that of the author, or the publisher, as the case may be, of that work, appears on copies of the work as published, or, in the case of an artistic work, appeared on the work when it was made, the person whose name so appears or appeared shall, in any proceeding in respect of infringement of copyright in such work, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the author or the publisher of the work, as the case may be’’. The court ordered Sky B to cease infringing behavior on an interim basis signaling the legitimacy of Saregama’s ownership and pressuring Sky B’s non-compliance.

The Delhi Countermove:  Filing and Procedural Delays (2018–2024)

Parallel to the Calcutta case, Saregama filed a new suit on 17 December 2018 in the Delhi District Court, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, accounts, and delivery up. An ex parte interim injunction was promptly granted the very day the suit was filed stopping Sky B’s exploitation pending further proceedings. Despite being served multiple times (in December 2018), Sky B repeatedly failed to appear or file a written statement. Consequently, the court moved against them ex parte by 31 January 2019 and even allowed for summary judgment by March 2021. However, this was set aside in November 2024 when Sky B applied for relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Still, Sky B remained absent, prompting the court to revert to ex parte proceedings on 3 May 2025.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: A TURNING POINT (JULY 2025)

Realizing the procedural and evidentiary chasm, Saregama invoked Order XIIIA CPC, seeking summary judgment on 5 July 2025. The court considered a robust evidentiary portfolio including incorporation certificates, lists of recordings and works being used, Tata Sky channel listings demonstrating viewership distribution, sample license agreements, inlay card proofs, and prior court orders (Calcutta’s 2020 injunction, Delhi’s interim injunction, and procedural documents). Given Sky B’s continued absence and Saregama’s strong documentary evidence of ownership and infringement, the court concluded there was no real prospect of a successful defense and no compelling reason to delay judgment. A summary judgment was deemed appropriate.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION & DAMAGES (18 JULY 2025)

On 18 July 2025, Judge Hemani Malhotra delivered a decisive verdict: Saregama was granted a permanent injunction against Sky B (Bangla) Pvt Ltd, restraining them and anyone acting on their behalf from any further unauthorized exploitation of Saregama’s copyrighted works. Further, given the willful nature of infringement and prolonged non-compliance, Sky B was ordered to pay Rs. 4,00,000 in damages as compensation and bear the legal costs of the suit. The court held that such infringing behavior was deliberate and harmful to Saregama’s business model and reputation, citing precedents that emphasized deterrence through punitive damages when infringers evade litigation.

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE & BROADER TAKEAWAYS

• Summary Judgment as a Strategic Weapon; Commercial courts are increasingly leveraging Order XIIIA to fast-track cases with clear evidence, bypassing drawn-out trials especially in IP disputes.

• Proof of Ownership Matters; Saregama’s exhaustive documentation including master plates, agreements, and inlay cards solidified its claim. Physical and formal proof under Section 55(2) made rebuttal nearly impossible.

• Non-Appearance Is Costly; Sky B’s repeated non-engagement led to ex parte proceedings, denial of procedural relief, and eventually summary judgment reinforcing that corporate defendants cannot escape accountability through silence.

• Damages, Not Just Injunctions; Granting Rs. 4 lakh in damages underscores that courts may penalize deliberate infringers financially not merely enjoin their behavior.

• Template for Rights Enforcement; This case sets a powerful precedent for legacy content owners, broadcasters, and compliance officers emphasizing the importance of licensing, contractual clarity, and court readiness when infringement arises.

CONCLUSION

The Saregama vs Sky B saga illustrates a compelling arc of IP law: a historic rights holder defending its legacy amid modern content distribution challenges, through a potent blend of procedural strategy and substantive proof. With the Delhi court’s decisive judgment now on record, it becomes a bellwether for how Indian courts may streamline commercial copyright enforcement ensuring that creative investments remain protected, even when broadcast meets bygone art. This case underscores the vigilant protection of legacy media rights in the digital era, affirming that broadcasters must secure proper clearances before exploiting archival and regional music content. It also reinforces the courts’ readiness to enforce rights decisively and swiftly in commercial settings especially where evidence is unambiguous.