The Saket Commercial Court held that Anamika Sood’s song “Ferrareee” was an original work and rejected Saregama’s claim that it copied the hook portion of “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” from the film Naya Daur.
A Delhi Commercial Court has awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to singer Anamika Sood after finding that Saregama India Ltd. failed to prove copyright infringement against her song “Ferrareee”.
District Judge (Commercial)-05, South East, Saket Courts, Neelam Singh, passed the judgment on April 18, 2026 in Ms. Anamika Sood, Sole Proprietor-Koco7 v. Google LLC D/B/A YouTube & Anr., CS (COMM) No.170 of 2021.
Saregama had alleged that “Ferrareee” copied the hook portion of “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” from the film Naya Daur. The Court rejected the allegation and held that Saregama did not place cogent evidence to prove copying.
Anamika Sood filed the suit seeking a mandatory injunction for reinstatement of her song on YouTube.
She also sought a declaration that she was the author and owner of the sound recording under Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act, 1957. In addition, she claimed damages for the alleged illegal takedown of her work.
The dispute arose after YouTube removed “Ferrareee” on the basis of a takedown notice issued by Saregama.
Saregama claimed that the song substantially reproduced the musical composition of “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da”. It specifically alleged copying of the hook portion.
Sood submitted that she had produced, written the lyrics of, and performed “Ferrareee”.
She stated that Harmeet Singh, also known as MixSingh, composed the music. According to her, he assigned and waived rights in her favour through an assignment agreement dated September 4, 2020.
She also relied on the copyright registration obtained under Section 45 of the Copyright Act.
The plaintiff admitted that a small portion of the tune drew inspiration from the Punjabi folk/traditional song “Sadke Sadke Jandiya”.
However, she argued that “Ferrareee” was a new and original work. She claimed originality in the sound recording, lyrics and underlying musical works.
Sood also submitted that she had created the work through substantial skill and labour.
The Court noted that Google LLC/YouTube had been deleted from the array of parties by order dated October 16, 2023.
The plaintiff gave consent for deletion because YouTube had already reinstated the song. Therefore, no relief survived against YouTube.
After that, the Court considered the claims only against Saregama India Ltd.
Saregama submitted that it owned copyright in the sound recordings and underlying works of songs from the film Naya Daur.
It relied on an agreement dated October 17, 1955 with M/s BR Films. It also relied on supplementary agreements dated May 31, 2007 and October 30, 2015.
According to Saregama, “Ferrareee” copied the hook or catch portion of “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da”. It described that portion as the most recognisable and distinctive element of the song.
The Court framed issues on three main questions.
First, it considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of copyright in “Ferrareee”.
Second, it examined whether she was entitled to damages.
Third, it considered whether she had copied the musical work of Saregama’s song “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da”.
The Court considered the copyright declaration issue and the copying issue together. It noted that the claim over the sound recording depended on whether the underlying literary and musical works infringed any earlier copyright.
The Court referred to Sections 2(d)(v), 2(d)(i), 2(d)(ii), 2(o), 2(p), 2(xx), 13, 14, 17 and 13(3)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
It held that under Section 2(d)(v), the producer of a sound recording is its author.
Under Section 17, the author becomes the first owner of copyright.
On the facts, the Court found that Sood had established her rights in the literary and musical works forming part of “Ferrareee”.
The Court relied on Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1.
It held that even a derivative work can qualify as original if it involves sufficient skill, labour and minimal creativity.
The Court also observed that traditional works form part of the public domain due to antiquity and lack of identifiable authorship. Therefore, no party can claim exclusive ownership over such traditional works.
The Court found that “Ferrareee” drew only limited inspiration from a folk melody.
It held that the overall composition, arrangement, rhythm, lyrics, beat structure and production of the song were materially distinct.
According to the Court, Sood had added modern musical elements, independent lyrical content and a distinct sound recording.
These elements transformed the traditional base into a new expression.
The Court recorded that Saregama failed to produce cogent evidence to prove that the hook portion of “Ferrareee” was the same as the hook portion of “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da”.
Saregama’s witness admitted during cross-examination that no document had been filed to show that the hook part of the plaintiff’s song matched the hook part of Saregama’s song.
The Court also considered Sood’s argument under Section 27 of the Copyright Act on the term of copyright in sound recordings.
Sood had argued that “Reshmi Salwar Kurta Jali Da” was published in 1957. She submitted that Saregama could not claim copyright in the sound recording beyond the statutory period.
Ultimately, the Court held that Saregama failed to establish its infringement allegation on the evidence.
Sood claimed damages for alleged sponsorship losses, cancellation of events, mental agony and litigation costs.
However, the Court found that several monetary claims lacked adequate pleadings or original documentary evidence.
It held that the plaintiff had not proved actual damages to the full extent claimed.
At the same time, the Court found that the wrongful copyright strike and takedown caused harm to Sood. It noted that removal of a song from YouTube affects viewership and monetisation.
On that basis, the Court awarded ₹5 lakh as damages to Sood.
The Court declared that Sood is the author and owner of the sound recording of “Ferrareee” within the meaning of Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act.
This declaration remains subject to the Court’s observations on works derived from traditional and folk compositions.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The Court awarded ₹5 lakh as damages against Saregama India Ltd.
