Delhi High Court Orders Paramvah Studios to Pay ₹25 Lakh for Unauthorised Song Use in Bachelor Party

Delhi High Court Orders Paramvah Studios to Pay ₹25 Lakh for Unauthorised Song Use in Bachelor Party

Introduction

The Delhi High Court directed Paramvah Studios, the production house of Kannada actor-director Rakshit Shetty, to deposit ₹20 lakh towards licence fees and further imposed ₹5 lakh as costs for contempt, holding that the unauthorised use of two Kannada film songs in Bachelor Party was deliberate and qualitatively significant. The Court rejected the defence of de minimis use, emphasizing that even short-duration use can amount to infringement when it is narratively purposeful.

Factual Background

The dispute arose from the use of two Kannada songs “Nyaya Ellide” (used for approximately 7 seconds) and “Omme Ninnanu” (used for approximately 31 seconds) in the film Bachelor Party. According to MRT Music, it held the copyright in both the sound recordings and the underlying literary and musical works through a valid assignment from the original rights holder.

MRT Music alleged that Paramvah Studios had approached it shortly before the film’s release for a synchronization licence but proceeded to use the songs without finalising any permission.

Procedural Background

MRT Music instituted a copyright infringement suit before the Delhi High Court against Paramvah Studios and others. During the proceedings, the Court had earlier directed the defendants to deposit ₹20 lakh as licence fee, but the defendants failed to comply within the stipulated time. The matter thereafter involved adjudication not only on infringement but also on the consequences of delayed compliance with the Court’s prior order.

Issues

1. Whether the use of short excerpts of the songs constituted de minimis or incidental use.

2. Whether MRT Music was competent to grant licences despite not being a registered copyright society.

3. Whether the defendants’ delay in depositing the amount directed by the Court amounted to wilful contempt.

Contentions of Parties

MRT Music contended that the defendants had consciously used the songs in key scenes to strengthen the film’s emotional and narrative impact, making the use qualitatively substantial despite the short duration. It also argued that as the copyright owner, it was entitled to independently grant licences.

Paramvah Studios argued that the use was too trivial to amount to infringement and invoked the de minimis doctrine and fair use principles. It also questioned MRT Music’s competence to license the songs on the ground that it was not a registered copyright society.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court rejected the de minimis defence and held that the test is predominantly qualitative rather than merely quantitative. Justice Tejas Karia noted that the songs were not used incidentally in the background but were consciously selected to reinforce narrative themes, including scenes reflecting the protagonist’s emotional turmoil. Such deliberate use, even for a few seconds, could not be treated as trivial.

The bench of Justice Tejas Karia further held that an individual copyright owner does not require registration as a copyright society to grant licences over its own works, thereby rejecting the defendants’ statutory objection.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court observed that the film’s availability on OTT platforms accessible in Delhi was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, notwithstanding that both parties were based in Bengaluru.

As regards contempt, the Court found that the defendants had failed to comply with the earlier direction to deposit ₹20 lakh within time and treated the delay as wilful non-compliance, warranting imposition of costs.

Decision

The Delhi High Court directed Paramvah Studios to:-

• deposit ₹20 lakh as licence fee, and
• pay ₹5 lakh as costs to purge the contempt.

The Court thus held the unauthorised use of the songs in Bachelor Party to be infringing and the delayed compliance to amount to contempt.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar with Advocates Asavari Jain, Geetanjali Visvanathan, Shivansh Tiwari, Ritik Raghuvanshi, Shrudula Murthy, Rishika Aggarwal and Prathibha. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Meenakshi Ogra, Samrat S. Kang and Vishnu Gambhir.