### Introduction
The case of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. vs Saregama India Limited And 2 Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on August 12, 2025, involves a copyright dispute within the Indian entertainment industry concerning the digital exploitation of musical works. The plaintiff, Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, Saregama India Limited and others, from unauthorized use of certain sound recordings and underlying works. This interim application, decided within Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022, delves into the complexities of copyright ownership, licensing agreements, and the scope of digital rights, providing a critical examination of intellectual property law in the context of evolving media platforms.
### Factual Background
Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd., a well-established entity in the media and entertainment sector, claims ownership or exclusive rights to a substantial catalog of sound recordings and underlying musical works, acquired through assignments and licensing agreements over decades. The plaintiff alleges that Saregama India Limited, a competitor with a vast music library, along with Gravity Zero Entertainment LLP and another defendant, has been exploiting certain of Shemaroo’s copyrighted works on digital platforms without authorization. The dispute centers on a specific set of songs, where Shemaroo asserts that its rights, including digital streaming and downloading rights, were violated following the expiration of a prior licensing arrangement with Saregama in 2021. The defendants contend that their use is based on independent rights or lapsed agreements, denying any infringement.
### Procedural Background
The plaintiff initiated Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, filing Interim Application No. 5236 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to seek an interim injunction against the defendants. The application was grounded in Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging infringement of its exclusive rights. The court issued notices, and the matter proceeded with detailed arguments from both parties, focusing on the ownership and scope of rights. The hearing was conducted, and the court reserved its judgment, pronouncing the decision on August 12, 2025, within the Commercial Division, after a thorough review of the evidence and submissions.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the defendants’ exploitation of the disputed sound recordings and underlying works on digital platforms constitutes copyright infringement, warranting an interim injunction. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of past licensing agreements, the transfer of rights, and the extent of digital rights retained by Shemaroo post-2021. The plaintiff argues that its exclusive rights were violated, supported by assignment deeds and the absence of a valid license, while the defendants assert that their actions are lawful, based on either their own copyright ownership or the expiration of Shemaroo’s rights, challenging the necessity of an injunction.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The plaintiff cited Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, AIR 1977 SC 1443, to argue that exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, justify interim relief when infringement is prima facie evident. They also referenced Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 2002 (25) PTC 510 (Del), to assert that unauthorized digital exploitation breaches copyright, supporting their claim. The defendants relied on Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., (2008) 13 SCC 30, to contend that licensing agreements can limit exclusive rights, challenging the plaintiff’s scope of control. The court drew on Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., 2007 (35) PTC 679 (Bom), to balance creator rights with public access, and referenced Saregama India Ltd. v. Next Radio Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9735, to emphasize the need for clear evidence of infringement, influencing the judicial analysis.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court, presided over by an unnamed judge, conducted a detailed examination of the licensing agreements and assignment deeds presented by the plaintiff, focusing on the transfer of digital rights. The judge found that Shemaroo had established a prima facie case of ownership over the disputed works, supported by documentary evidence of assignments post-2021. However, the defendants’ contention that certain rights reverted to them or were never transferred was noted as requiring further scrutiny. The court recognized the potential for consumer confusion and economic harm to Shemaroo due to unauthorized digital exploitation, tipping the balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favor. The public interest in accessing music was considered, but the judge concluded that it did not outweigh the need to protect Shemaroo’s prima facie rights pending trial, justifying interim relief.
### Final Decision
The High Court allowed Interim Application No. 5236 of 2022, granting an interim injunction in favor of Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. The defendants, Saregama India Limited and the other respondents, were restrained from exploiting the disputed sound recordings and underlying works on digital platforms until the final disposal of Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022. The court directed the suit to proceed expeditiously, with the injunction subject to further orders based on evidence adduced during the trial.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment clarifies that a plaintiff with prima facie evidence of copyright ownership and exclusive digital rights can secure an interim injunction against unauthorized exploitation, even in the presence of competing claims. It establishes that the balance of convenience and potential irreparable harm to the copyright holder outweigh public access considerations at the interim stage, provided the plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success. The decision reinforces the protective scope of the Copyright Act, 1957, in the digital era, emphasizing the importance of clear contractual documentation in determining rights.
### Case Details
Case Title: Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. vs Saregama India Limited And 2 Ors.
Date of Order: 12 August, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application No. 5236 of 2022 in Commercial IP Suit No. 557 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13267
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division
Name of Judge: Not specified in the document
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Digital Copyright Disputes: The Shemaroo v. Saregama Case Study
2. Interim Injunctions in Music Rights: Insights from the Bombay High Court
3. Ownership and Digital Exploitation: Analyzing Shemaroo Entertainment v. Saregama
4. Balancing Convenience in IP Litigation: The Shemaroo Judgment Explored
5. Copyright Protection in the Digital Age: Lessons from Shemaroo v. Saregama
6. Licensing Agreements and Infringement: The Bombay High Court’s Ruling in 2025
7. Public Interest vs. Copyright Rights: The Shemaroo Entertainment Dispute
8. Prima Facie Case in Music Copyright: The Shemaroo v. Saregama Decision
