Summary
In the case of Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors., the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction against the use of the song Tirchi Topiwale and its remix Rang De Lal in the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge. The court said that the plaintiff had not made out a case for discretionary interim relief because of its past inaction, disputed assignment terms, and the possibility of monetary compensation. The court also said that stopping only the OTT release after theatrical release would create an incongruous result.
Background
Copyright Assignment and Film Song Dispute
The plaintiff claimed copyright in the song Tirchi Topiwale from the film Tridev, including the lyrics, music, and sound recording. The plaintiff said that under the agreement dated 30 June 1988, only limited record-related rights were assigned to one defendant, and no right was given to use the song or a remix in another film. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants used the original song and a remix titled Rang De Lal in Dhurandhar: The Revenge without permission.
The defendants resisted the injunction. They said that the 1988 agreement assigned broad rights in the literary, dramatic, and musical works embodied in Tridev. They also pointed to prior use of Tridev songs in Azhar and K.G.F: Chapter 1 and said that the plaintiff had not pursued timely legal action.
Questions Before the Court
-
-
- Whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunction against the use of Tirchi Topiwale or its remix in Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
- Whether the 1988 assignment agreement appeared to give only limited record-related rights or broader rights in the underlying works.
- Whether the plaintiff’s earlier inaction and alleged suppression of material facts affected its claim for discretionary interim relief.
- Whether an injunction against OTT release could be granted after the film had already been released in cinema halls.
- Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff ultimately proved its copyright claim.
-
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued as follows:
-
-
- It retained copyright in Tridev and in the song Tirchi Topiwale, including the lyrics, music, and sound recording.
- The 1988 agreement assigned only limited record-based rights to defendant no. 3.
- The agreement allowed manufacture and sale of records, cassettes, and gramophone records, but did not permit synchronisation or incorporation of the song in another cinematograph film.
- The remix titled Rang De Lal used substantial parts of Tirchi Topiwale, and such use required the plaintiff’s permission.
- Each unauthorised exploitation of the song or remix gave a fresh cause of action.
- Earlier inaction could not prevent the plaintiff from seeking relief against use of the song in Dhurandhar: The Revenge.
- The court could restrain OTT release of the film to the extent it contained the infringing song or remix.
-
Defendants’ Arguments
The defendants argued as follows:
-
-
- The 1988 agreement assigned broad rights in the literary, dramatic, and musical works embodied in Tridev.
- The agreement gave defendant no. 3 rights to make versions, adaptations, broadcasts, public performances, and recordings of the works.
- The plaintiff had knowledge of earlier uses of Tridev songs in Azhar and K.G.F: Chapter 1 but did not take effective legal action.
- The plaintiff had suppressed material facts relating to earlier notices, replies, and prior exploitations of songs from Tridev.
- The plaintiff’s earlier inaction assured them that defendant no. 3 could exploit the assigned rights.
- The film had already been released in cinema halls, and restraining only OTT release would create an inconsistent result.
- Damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff finally proved its copyright claim.
-
Court’s Analysis
The court began by examining the requirements for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the court, the plaintiff had to show a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court also observed that interim injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, and that a party seeking such relief must place all material facts before the court.
On the 1988 agreement, the court observed that the plaintiff’s case turned on whether the assignment was confined to record-based exploitation or whether it covered broader rights in the underlying works. As per the court, the agreement required a detailed reading of its definition of the said work, the clauses concerning literary, dramatic, and musical works, the right to make versions, and the clauses dealing with adaptation and authorship of records. The court stated that these clauses prima facie distinguished the present agreement from the agreement considered in Shemaroo.
The court did not finally decide the scope of the assignment at the interim stage. According to the court, the rival interpretations of the agreement, the correspondence exchanged in 1988 and 1989, and the later documents required evidence and could not be conclusively determined in an interim application.
On prior conduct, the court gave weight to the plaintiff’s inaction in relation to earlier uses of songs from Tridev in Azhar and K.G.F: Chapter 1. The court accepted that every alleged infringement may provide a fresh cause of action. However, the court observed that a fresh cause of action does not automatically entitle a party to discretionary interim relief when the party’s past conduct remains relevant to equity.
The court also considered the allegation that the plaintiff had not disclosed all material facts about earlier disputes, notices, and replies. In the court’s view, these facts were relevant because they had a direct bearing on the plaintiff’s knowledge, delay, and conduct. The court therefore treated the plaintiff’s unexplained silence and prior inaction as important factors against the grant of an interim injunction.
On balance of convenience, the court observed that the defendants had proceeded with the film on the basis of the 1988 agreement and the plaintiff’s past conduct. According to the court, the defendants had invested time, money, and effort in Dhurandhar: The Revenge. The court considered this while deciding whether it should stop further exploitation of the film at the interim stage.
On OTT release, the court stated that the film had already been released in cinema halls across India. The court found that restraining only the OTT release would create an incongruous situation because the same alleged infringing song would remain available in the theatrical version but would be restrained on OTT platforms.
On irreparable injury, the court observed that the plaintiff had also claimed monetary relief. According to the court, if the plaintiff finally established its rights, damages could adequately compensate it. The court therefore refused to grant interim injunction.
Findings
The findings of the court are:
-
-
- Interim injunction against the use of Tirchi Topiwale or the remix Rang De Lal in Dhurandhar: The Revenge was refused.
- The ownership or assignment issue was not finally decided at the interim stage.
- The 1988 agreement required detailed examination at trial.
- The plaintiff’s earlier inaction and unexplained conduct weighed against discretionary interim relief.
- Restraining OTT release after theatrical release would create an incongruous situation.
- Damages could adequately compensate the plaintiff if it finally established its rights.
-
Relevant Paras
Para 14: “Significantly, while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Courts are to be guided by the principles of triple test i.e., whether there exists a prima facie strong case in favour of the plaintiff, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and whether irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms.”
Para 27: “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.”
Para 28: “To compound the above, it is also necessary to note that due to the eerie silence and complete apathetic inaction on the part of the plaintiff in resisting or challenging the previous alleged infringements, evidently assured the defendant no.3 of exercising, what it claims to be complete assignment of the copyrights in the manner best suited to it.”
Para 30: “In view of the aforesaid circumstances and peculiar facts arising in the present case, even if there is no statutory bar of acquiescence under the Copyright Act, 1957, the conduct of the plaintiff, which has sadly remained unexplained even in the affidavits, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is well nigh impossible to accede to the request of the plaintiff to exercise any discretionary relief.”
Para 33.3: “Read conjunctively and harmoniously, the aforesaid extracts of the definition of the ‘said work’ with para 2(i) and 2(xi) coupled with paras 7, 8 and 12, prima facie propel this Court to the opinion that the agreement in Shemaroo (supra) may not be entirely pari materia with the present agreement.”
Para 41: “This Court finds that in Saregama India Ltd. (supra), the defendants did not deny infringement during the course of their arguments, whereas, in the present case not only does the defendant no.3 not admit any infringement whatsoever, but actually asserts all rights, title and interest over the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the songs of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ including the rights to exploit remixed versions of the said songs in any other cinematograph film.”
Para 43: “While the plaintiff may be correct in contending that in case this Court finds the plaintiff to have its copyrights subsisting the release of the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’, despite the release of the cinematograph film in Cinema Halls, an interim order restraining release of the same in OTT platforms can still be passed, however, in the opinion of this Court, acceding to such argument would result in an incongruous situation.”
Case Citation: Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 378/2026, I.A. 9697/2026, Delhi High Court, 14 May 2026. Available on: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/50845818/ Visit date: 17 May 2026.
Disclaimer: This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.