Facts:

• The Plaintiff claimed ownership of copyrights in various sound recordings, including the underlying musical scores and lyrics. The Plaintiff accused the Defendant of releasing audio cassettes containing remixes of these works without permission, infringing on the Plaintiff's copyrights.
• The Plaintiff's specific grievance relates to audio cassettes titled “28 Super Non-Stop Remix” Volumes 2 to 4, which contained remixes of songs from films like “Hum Aapke Hain Kaun” and “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge”. The Plaintiff alleged these version recordings were made without its consent.
• Despite the Defendant seeking permission for making version recordings, the Plaintiff had explicitly denied such permission. Yet, the Defendant proceeded to create and distribute these recordings.
• During a hearing on 29.07.1999, the Defendant agreed not to release any cassette infringing the Plaintiff's copyrights.
• The Plaintiff argued that DVDs and VCDs contain cinematograph films and do not merely constitute sound recordings, thus falling outside the provisions of Section 52(1)(j).
• Following some correspondence, the Defendant released VCDs and DVDs, prompting the Plaintiff to file another suit (C.S.(OS) No. 399 of 2005) seeking an injunction against the making of cinematograph films embodying the Plaintiff’s works without a license.
• The Defendant acknowledged making version recordings with a different set of performers, claiming the right to do so under Section 52(1)(j), regardless of the Plaintiff's refusal.
• The Plaintiff filed C.S.(OS) No. 1625 of 1999 seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant Company to prevent the issuance of any sound recordings embodying works copyrighted by the Plaintiff. They sought to stop the Defendant from launching remix versions of these recordings, referred to as “version recordings”.

Main Issue:

Whether producing different versions of the original work is tantamount to infringement of copyright?