Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani and Others (Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd.), CS(COMM) 200/2018, decided on 09 January 2026, offers a significant judicial exposition on the limits of moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, especially in the context of works created during employment. The judgment underscores the evidentiary rigor required to establish authorship, clarifies the operation of Section 17(c) on first ownership of copyright, and reiterates the long-standing principle that ideas, without proven original expression, are not protectable. This case is particularly instructive for professionals working in the creative, media, and events industry, where concepts are often developed collaboratively and under informal arrangements, and where disputes frequently arise over attribution, credit, and revenue sharing.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Mr. Gaurav Garg, claimed that in June 2008, while working with the Cineyug group, he conceptualised and reduced to writing the idea for a high-profile event titled “IPL Awards”, envisioned as a large-scale awards ceremony linked to the Indian Premier League.

According to the plaintiff:

-          He worked closely with Aly Morani and Mohomed Morani (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) between March 2008 and October 2009.

-          He was publicly presented as Vice President, Cineyug Signature, a special division allegedly created for premium projects.

-          He prepared detailed presentations and feasibility studies, which were shared with IPL stakeholders and were accepted in principle.

Although the event was initially deferred, it was eventually held and broadcast in 2010, without giving him credit as “Conceptualiser and Project Director.” The plaintiff relied heavily on an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 05 August 2009, claiming it entitled him to future remuneration and attribution when the event materialised. Upon discovering that the event had gone ahead without his involvement, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice and subsequently filed a commercial suit seeking injunctions, damages, and enforcement of his moral rights.

Claims and Defences

Plaintiff’s Claims

The plaintiff sought:

-          A permanent injunction restraining infringement of his moral rights under Section 57.

-          An injunction restraining the defendants from conducting or broadcasting the IPL Awards.

-          Punitive damages, rendition of accounts, and costs.

Defendants’ Defence

The defendants raised multiple defences:

-          The injunction claim was infructuous, as the event had already been broadcast.

-          The plaintiff was asserting rights over a mere idea or concept, which is not copyrightable.

-          The plaintiff was an employee, and any work created belonged to the employer under Section 17(c).

-          The alleged MOU was unexecuted, unproved, and unrelated to IPL Awards.

-          The plaintiff failed to complete cross-examination, rendering his evidence unreliable.

-          No personal liability could be fastened on the directors without specific pleadings.

Issues Before the Court

The Court framed six issues, the most significant being:

1.      Whether the plaintiff was the author of the literary work embodying the IPL Awards.

2.      Whether he was entitled to moral rights under Section 57.

3.      Whether the alleged agreement dated 05.08.2009 was proved.

4.      Whether there was infringement warranting relief.

To know more about this, please check the below link.

Court’s Analysis

1. Authorship and Proof of Work: At the heart of the dispute was the plaintiff’s claim of authorship. The Court emphasised that authorship must be proved by legally admissible evidence, particularly when documents are denied by the opposite party.

Crucially:

The plaintiff failed to place on record the original June 2008 written work allegedly authored by him. Documents such as presentations and business cards were denied by the defendants and were not proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff’s cross-examination remained incomplete, despite multiple opportunities, leading to closure of evidence. Relying on settled law, the Court held that incomplete testimony carries no probative value, and denied documents cannot be relied upon without formal proof.

2. Employment and Section 17(c): On the basis of admitted email communications and conduct, the Court found that the plaintiff was working as an employee under a contract of service with Defendant No. 3 during the relevant period.

Applying Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, the Court reiterated:

Where a work is made in the course of employment, the employer shall be the first owner of the copyright, absent an agreement to the contrary. The plaintiff failed to establish any contractual arrangement reserving ownership or authorship in his favour. Consequently, even assuming that copyright subsisted in the work, first ownership vested with the employer, not the plaintiff.

3. Moral Rights under Section 57: The judgment is particularly important for its treatment of Section 57 (Author’s Special Rights).

The Court held:

-          Section 57 presupposes authorship. Where authorship itself is not established, moral rights cannot be invoked.

-          The plaintiff did not plead or prove any distortion, mutilation, or modification of the work, as required under Section 57(1)(b).

-          The right to claim authorship under Section 57(1)(a) was unavailable in light of the finding on employment and Section 17(c).

-          Thus, the Court clarified that moral rights do not override statutory ownership rules, and cannot be used to indirectly assert authorship where it is not legally established.

4. Alleged MOU and Revenue Sharing: The alleged MOU dated 05.08.2009 was found to be: Unproved. The Court held that no agreement existed entitling the plaintiff to revenue sharing or remuneration from exploitation of the IPL Awards concept.

5. Reliefs: Given the failure to establish authorship, moral rights, or contractual entitlement, the Court dismissed all claims for: Injunction, Damages, Rendition of accounts and The suit was dismissed without costs.

Conclusion

The decision in Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani reinforces the principle that copyright law protects expression, not ambition, and that moral rights cannot be divorced from proof of authorship and ownership. In industries driven by collaboration and creativity, the judgment serves as a timely reminder: legal rights are secured not by ideas alone, but by evidence, contracts, and compliance with statutory frameworks.