Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction Over Tridev Song Remix In Dhurandhar: The Revenge
The Bench held that the plaintiff’s eerie silence on previous exploitations in ‘Azhar’ & ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ assured the defendants of their rights under the 1988 agreement.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has declined to grant an ad-interim injunction to Trimurti Films Private Limited, the producer of the iconic 1989 film ‘Tridev’, in a copyright infringement suit concerning the remixed version of the song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from exploiting the remixed song, titled ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’, in the new cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’, particularly on OTT platforms.
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s prolonged inaction which it referred to as “eerie silence and complete apathetic inaction” against earlier alleged infringements led Super Cassettes Industries to alter its position, invest heavily, and commercially exploit the disputed songs.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela holding that the plaintiff’s claim that failure to restrain OTT release would harm the Copyright Act’s licensing regime was untenable and unmerited, observed, “…This is for the reason that the opinion formed by this Court is only prima facie and the parties will have adequate and complete opportunity to establish their rights in accordance with law in trial, and if the plaintiff is able to establish its rights, then, of course, the right of the plaintiff to demand any person, including defendants to obtain permission/license from it, shall stand vindicated. Thus, for the aforesaid reason the contention is unacceptable”.
“In the present case, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 on the assurance and the agreement with defendant no.3 have invested huge sums of money, time and efforts in producing the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and cannot now be put to a detrimental or disadvantageous position and direct them to undergo huge financial losses merely at the askance of the plaintiff, as and when the plaintiff chooses to awaken from its deep slumber”, the Bench noted.
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, Amit Sibbal and Sandeep Sethi appeared for the defendants.
Trimurti Films (Plaintiff) alleged that it holds absolute copyright over the underlying literary, musical, and sound recording works of the song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’. It contended that a 1988 agreement with Super Cassettes Industries (Defendant No. 3) assigned limited rights for record-based exploitation only and did not permit synchronization in other films. The dispute arose when the defendants incorporated a remix of the song in the film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ without explicit fresh permission.
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a temporary injunction against the theatrical and digital exploitation of the infringing film. During the proceedings, Defendant No. 3 produced evidence of past interactions, including a 2016 legal notice where the plaintiff had challenged similar use in the film ‘Azhar’ but failed to pursue it after receiving a rebuttal. The plaintiff also failed to disclose the use of another song, ‘Gali Gali’, in the 2019 film ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’.
The Court found the plaintiff’s conduct intriguing, noting significant contradictions between its pleadings and the affidavits filed by its promoter.
The Bench held that the plaintiff’s eerie silence regarding previous exploitations in ‘Azhar’ and ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ had assured the defendants of their rights under the 1988 agreement. Furthermore, a prima facie reading of the 1988 contract suggested that Defendant No. 3 was granted broad rights to make "versions" and "adaptations," potentially including remixes.
“…It has to be borne in mind that almost seven to nine years have elapsed since the previous alleged violations/infringements took place in respect of the same cinematograph film, against which the plaintiff did not even move a muscle. Therefore, to contend that every infringement or exploitation without authorization would give rise to a fresh cause of action, though may be right, but to canvass that the Court is bound to exercise discretionary relief in such compelling circumstances, is untenable and unpalatable”, the Bench noted.
While the Court refused the injunction, it directed Defendant No. 3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar General of the High Court within four weeks. This amount is to be invested in an interest-bearing FDR to benefit the successful party at the conclusion of the trial.
Cause Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC: 4280)
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, R.A. Iyer, Ritik Raghuvanshi, Rishika Aggarwal, Anshu Tulsyan, Advocates with Umesh Mehta, AR.
Defendant: Ravi Prakash, Senior Advocate, Nizam Pasha, Parag Khandhar, Anaheet Verma, Sidharth Kaushik, Astu Khandelwal and Charu Sharma, Advocates, Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate alongwith Ameet N., Madhu Gadolia, Harshvardhan Jha, Unnati Gambhani, Aman Pathak, Vinayika Shahi, Shruti Sharma, Krishna G., Shreya Sethi and Riya Kumar, Advocates, Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Harsh Kaushik, Aditya Gupta, Geetanjali Visvanathan, Asavari Jain, Shivansh Tiwari, Tarun Tripathi, Ridhie Bajaj and Krishnesh Bapat, Advocates.