In a significant ruling on copyright law, the Bombay High Court has held that copyright assignments made under decades-old agreements extend to digital and non-physical modes of exploitation—even if such mediums were not envisaged at the time of the assignment.

Justice Manish Pitale delivered the ruling on June 11 in the case Rupali Shah v. Adani Wilmar Limited, rejecting a lawsuit filed by Rupali Shah, daughter of late film producer OP Ralhan. Shah had sought to restrain Saregama and Adani Wilmar from using songs from her father’s films, arguing that digital rights were not included in the original 1967 assignment agreement.

The dispute arose over the use of the iconic song "Meri Duniya Hai Maa Tere Aanchal Mein" from the film Talash in an advertisement by Adani Wilmar. The song had been licensed by Saregama, which had acquired rights in perpetuity through an assignment from Ralhan’s production house decades ago.

Shah contended that the original assignment had expired and that the rights had reverted to her, especially with respect to new-age digital platforms. She claimed that since technologies like digital streaming were not in existence at the time of the agreement, they were not covered by it.

However, the Court disagreed, holding that the 1967 agreement clearly granted Saregama’s predecessor the right to exploit the musical works “by any and every means whatsoever.” The Court interpreted this language as broad enough to encompass all future modes of exploitation.

“The use of the aforementioned words in clause 10 of the agreement make it abundantly clear that the assignee had the right to exploit the works by all means,” the Court stated.

Justice Pitale also dismissed the argument that perpetual assignments could eventually expire, clarifying that any time limitations in the agreement applied only to the creation of new works—not to the duration of exploitation rights for the existing compositions.

While noting later amendments to the Copyright Act in 1994 and 2012, the Court held that these changes did not retroactively affect assignments that were already valid and lawful at the time they were made. The judgment emphasized that rights once validly assigned in perpetuity cannot be undone by changes in law introduced decades later.

The Court also took into account the fact that both Ralhan and his daughter had consistently accepted royalty payments over the years, including for digital use, thereby acknowledging Saregama’s continued rights.

Further, it pointed to Ralhan’s will, in which the assigned rights were treated as "property," suggesting his understanding that the rights had enduring commercial value.

“Defendant No.2 (Saregama) has proved that it has perpetual rights to exploit the music and the songs belonging to the estate of OP Ralhan and also holds perpetual right to grant licence to others in respect of the said music and songs,” the Court concluded while dismissing the suit.

The ruling affirms that the economic value of copyrighted works—when transferred through perpetual assignments—extends across all present and future platforms, regardless of technological evolution.

Legal Representation

• For Plaintiff (Rupali Shah): Senior Advocate Ashish Kamat with Advocates Rohan Kadam, Shirley Mody, and Rucha Vaidya, instructed by K Ashar & Co.

• For Adani Wilmar: Advocates Naresh Thacker, Shailendra Poria, and Samarth Saxena, instructed by Economic Laws Practice.

• For Saregama: Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar with Advocates Gaurav Mehta, Chakrapani Misra, Jigar Parmar, and Pranali Vyas, instructed by Khaitan & Co.