**Trimurti Films Loses Bid to Block 'Tirchi Topiwale' Use in Dhurandhar: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Over Suppression of Material Facts**
Trimurti Films Private Limited Vs. B62 Studios Private Limited:14.05.2026:CS(COMM) 378/2026: 2026:DHC:4280:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Trimurti Films Private Limited, one of India's oldest film production houses founded in 1969 by the late Gulshan Rai and currently managed by his son Rajiv Rai, is the producer of iconic Hindi films including Tridev, Vishwatma, Mohra and Gupt. The dispute centred on the iconic song 'Tirchi Topiwale' from the 1988 film 'Tridev', whose lyrics were written by Anand Bakshi and music composed by Kalyanji-Anandji. In 1988, Trimurti Films had entered into an assignment agreement dated June 30, 1988 with Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, now the defendant no.3, assigning limited rights for record-based exploitation through cassettes and gramophone records. In the fourth week of March 2026, Trimurti Films discovered that a remixed version of the song titled 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)' had been incorporated in the new film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge', released on March 19, 2026 by defendant no.1 B62 Studios and co-produced with defendant no.2 JIO Studios. Trimurti filed suit seeking to restrain the OTT release of the film to the extent it contained the song.
The defendants mounted a strong defense grounded primarily in the plaintiff's suppression of material facts. Super Cassettes placed on record a legal notice dated April 26, 2016 issued by Trimurti's own law firm Vox Law alleging infringement of Tridev songs in the film 'Azhar', and a reply notice dated May 2, 2016 by Super Cassettes asserting its complete rights under the 1988 agreement. The defendants further demonstrated through court orders and judgments that Trimurti had actively prosecuted multiple copyright lawsuits in various courts between 2016 and 2020, demolishing the plaintiff's claim that its promoter had been out of touch with Indian affairs since 1997. It was also revealed that another song 'Gali Gali' from Tridev had been used in the blockbuster 'K.G.F: Chapter 1' in 2019 without any legal challenge from Trimurti. The trailer of Trimurti's own 2025 film 'Zora' showed the same lawyer Mr. Amey Nargolkar still credited as legal counsel, contradicting Trimurti's claim of ignorance about its legal representatives.
Court refused to grant any interim injunction, applying the well-established principle that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. The Court relied heavily on the coordinate bench decision in Kent RO System Limited & Anr. v. Gattubhai & Ors.: (2022) SCC OnLine Del 701, affirming that suppression of material facts alone can disentitle a party from equitable relief. Invoking the Latin maxim "suppressio veri suggestio falsi", the Court held that the plaintiff's conduct of concealing prior notices, prior use of Tridev songs in two different films, and active litigation history between 2016 and 2020 amounted to material non-disclosure. The Court also found, prima facie, that a harmonious reading of paragraphs 2(i), 2(xi), 7, 8 and 12 of the 1988 agreement appeared to transfer all rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works of Tridev to Super Cassettes, with the cinematograph film itself being the only exception. The Court further held that it would create an incongruity if the song were permissible in cinema halls but injuncted on OTT, as the legal character of the act could not differ between platforms. Noting that the agreement's definition of "record" in paragraph 1(b) included devices "now or hereafter known", the Court held that digital streaming platforms were covered within the ambit of the 1988 agreement, and that any monetary loss to the plaintiff could be adequately compensated. Accordingly, while refusing injunctive relief, the Court directed Super Cassettes to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs in court within four weeks, to be held as an interest-bearing FDR for the benefit of whichever party ultimately succeeds at trial.
Disclaimer: Do not treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#CopyrightInfringement, #TirchiTopiwale, #TrimurtFilms, #SuperCassettes, #DhurandharTheRevenge, #TridevFilm, #BollywoodCopyright, #CopyrightAct1957, #OTTPlatformLaw, #IndianCopyrightLaw, #FilmCopyright, #SongRights, #MusicRights, #InterimInjunctionDenied, #DelhiHighCourt2026, #CleanHandsDoctrine, #SuppressioVeriSuggestioFalsi, #DiscretionaryRelief, #IPLitigationIndia, #AssignmentOfCopyright, #SoundRecordingRights, #RemixRights, #CopyrightAssignment, #FilmProducerRights, #DigitalStreamingLaw, #MusicLicensing, #RoyaltyDispute, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
# When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words: The Tale of Tirchi Topiwale, Trimurti Films, and the Price of Concealment
Clean Hands Doctrine in Copyright Law
Introduction: There is an old saying in law and in life he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. In the world of intellectual property litigation, this principle has particular force when a party approaches a court seeking the powerful and immediate relief of an interim injunction, which is essentially a request to stop someone else's activity before the full facts of a dispute have been examined in a trial. Courts grant such relief cautiously, as a matter of discretion, and only when the party asking for it can demonstrate not only that it has a good legal case but also that it has been honest and transparent with the court about everything that is relevant to its claim.
The judgment delivered on May 14, 2026 by High Court of Delhi in the case of Trimurti Films Private Limited versus B62 Studios Private Limited and Others offers a compelling and somewhat dramatic illustration of what happens when a plaintiff with a potentially arguable legal case undermines its own position through concealment, contradictions, and selective disclosure of facts. The case involves the legendary Bollywood song 'Tirchi Topiwale' from the 1988 blockbuster film 'Tridev', a song that defined an era and remains instantly recognizable to generations of Hindi film lovers. The dispute raises fascinating questions about the scope of old copyright assignment agreements, the rights of film producers versus music labels, the legal significance of long periods of inaction, and the extent to which a court exercising discretionary jurisdiction can and must look beyond the technical merits of a claim to the overall conduct of the party seeking relief.
The judgment is significant not only for what it decides but also for the manner in which it decides it. Court engages with complex contractual language from a 1988 agreement, tracks the plaintiff's conduct over a decade of litigation history it had concealed, and arrives at a balanced resolution that neither fully vindicates the plaintiff nor entirely ignores the potential legitimacy of its underlying claim. The Court directed Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, the music label that is defendant no.3, to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs in court as a protective measure, while leaving the final determination of rights to trial.
Factual and Procedural Background:Trimurti Films Private Limited is one of Bollywood's most iconic production houses. Founded in 1969 by the late Gulshan Rai, it produced some of Hindi cinema's most memorable films across several decades, including Tridev, Vishwatma, Mohra, Deewar and Gupt. The company is currently managed by Gulshan Rai's son Rajiv Rai. The film 'Tridev', released in 1988, became a massive commercial success and is remembered particularly for its music, including the unforgettable song 'Tirchi Topiwale', with lyrics penned by the legendary Anand Bakshi and music composed by the equally legendary duo Kalyanji-Anandji.
On June 30, 1988, the same day the film was being commercially exploited, Trimurti Films entered into an assignment agreement with Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited, the music label now commonly known as T-Series and referred to in this case as defendant no.3. The agreement assigned certain rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the songs of 'Tridev' to Super Cassettes, in exchange for royalty payments. The precise scope of what was assigned under this agreement — and what was retained by Trimurti Films — became the central contractual battleground in the case. Trimurti claimed the assignment was narrow, covering only the manufacture and sale of cassettes and gramophone records, and did not extend to incorporating the songs in any other cinematograph film. Super Cassettes claimed the assignment was broad, transferring all rights in the underlying literary, dramatic and musical works, and giving it the freedom to exploit those works in any manner it chose, including in remixed form in new films.
In or around the fourth week of March 2026, Trimurti Films discovered that a new Bollywood film titled 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' had been released on March 19, 2026. The film had been produced by defendant no.1, B62 Studios Private Limited, with defendant no.2 being JIO Studios, the OTT and production platform. In the said film, a remixed version of 'Tirchi Topiwale', retitled 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)', had been incorporated, playing during the closing credits of the film. It was also claimed that the original sound recording of 'Tirchi Topiwale' itself was used within the film. Trimurti asserted that neither it nor defendant no.3 had obtained permission from the plaintiff as the producer and copyright owner of the cinematograph film 'Tridev' before incorporating the song. The remixed version was also being exploited on multiple digital music platforms including Jio, Saavn, Gaana, Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music, generating commercial revenue.
Trimurti filed a civil suit and an application for interim injunction before the High Court of Delhi on April 9, 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing its copyright in 'Tirchi Topiwale' and from releasing the film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' on OTT platforms to the extent it contained the song. Since the film had already been released in cinema halls across India by the time the suit was filed, Trimurti specifically focused its interim prayer on preventing the further exploitation of the song in the forthcoming OTT release of the film and on various digital streaming platforms.
The Dispute: The dispute operated simultaneously on several levels, each of which the Court was required to examine carefully.
The first and most fundamental level concerned the interpretation of the agreement dated June 30, 1988. Trimurti's position was straightforward the agreement was a limited assignment covering only the creation and sale of records, meaning physical cassettes and gramophone records, in exchange for royalty payments. Any rights not explicitly assigned remained with Trimurti as the producer of 'Tridev'. In particular, Trimurti argued that the right to incorporate the songs into another cinematograph film what copyright law calls synchronization rights was never granted to Super Cassettes and therefore remained with Trimurti. Trimurti drew attention to the definition of "record" in Clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the agreement, which specifically excluded "a sound track associated with a cinematograph film", arguing that this showed the agreement was confined to standalone music recordings and not to film synchronization.
Super Cassettes presented a dramatically different reading. It argued that paragraph 2 of the agreement assigned all rights, title and interest in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the film to Super Cassettes, including sweeping rights of publication, sound broadcasting, public performance, mechanical reproduction, and recording. It further relied on paragraph 2(xi) which granted the right to make or authorize the making of any versions of the said work, and paragraph 7 which allowed Super Cassettes to adapt, alter and combine the said work with any other work. Paragraph 8 gave Super Cassettes ownership of the original master recordings and authorship of the records. Paragraph 12 provided that the assignment extended to all songs, dialogues and sequences in the film. Super Cassettes argued that the combined effect of these provisions was an almost complete assignment of musical, literary and dramatic rights, with only the cinematograph film of 'Tridev' itself remaining with Trimurti.
The second level of the dispute concerned what the Court called suppression of material facts. Super Cassettes revealed a series of facts that Trimurti had not disclosed in its plaint. In April 2016, Trimurti had issued a legal notice through its law firm Vox Law, represented by advocate Mr. Amey Nargolkar, to Balaji Motion Pictures, Sony Pictures Networks India and DJ Chetas alleging infringement of two 'Tridev' songs 'Gali Gali Mein Phirta Hai' and 'Gajar Ne Kiya Hai Ishara' in the film 'Azhar'. Super Cassettes had responded on May 2, 2016 asserting complete rights under the 1988 agreement and directing Trimurti to withdraw its notice. Trimurti never replied to this notice. Despite this notice-reply exchange in 2016, Trimurti's plaint made only a passing, unexplained reference to the film 'Azhar' without disclosing the notice or its reply. Super Cassettes also pointed out that another 'Tridev' song 'Gali Gali' was incorporated in the blockbuster Kannada-Hindi film 'K.G.F: Chapter 1' in 2019, and that Trimurti had taken no legal action against that use either. Additionally, documents showed that Trimurti had actively pursued at least five separate lawsuits in various courts between 2016 and 2020, completely contradicting its claim in the plaint that its promoter Rajiv Rai had been out of touch with Indian affairs since leaving for the United Kingdom in 1997 and was unaware of copyright misuse until his return in 2018-19. Even more damaging was a screenshot from the 2025 film 'Zora' produced by Trimurti, which clearly showed Mr. Amey Nargolkar's name in the legal credits, demonstrating that Trimurti's claimed ignorance of its own legal counsel was untrue.
The third level concerned the practical legal question of whether an OTT-specific injunction was even legally coherent, given that the film had already been released in cinemas with the same allegedly infringing song.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:The Court began by affirming the basic legal framework governing interim injunctions. It noted that such applications are to be decided on the triple test established by the Supreme Court of India whether the applicant has a prima facie strong case, whether the balance of convenience favors granting relief, and whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if relief is refused. But beyond this triple test, the Court emphasized that relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary, as established by the Supreme Court in Wander Limited versus Antox India Pvt. Ltd.: 1990 Supp SCC 727. Discretionary relief, the Court stressed, can only be obtained by a party that approaches the court with clean hands and does not suppress material facts.
To elaborate on this principle, the Court extracted at length the judgment of a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court in Kent RO System Limited & Anr. versus Gattubhai & Ors.: (2022) SCC OnLine Del 701. That judgment had held clearly that a party seeking discretionary relief has a duty to disclose all material facts to the court, and that injunctions obtained on account of deliberate suppression of material facts are liable to be vacated on that ground alone, irrespective of the underlying merits of the claim. The principle, as Justice Gedela articulated it, is captured in the classical maxim "suppressio veri suggestio falsi" the suppression of truth is equivalent to a suggestion of falsehood.
The Court then turned its attention to the extraordinary factual material that Super Cassettes had placed on record. The notice dated April 26, 2016 issued by Trimurti's own law firm and the reply notice dated May 2, 2016 from Super Cassettes were pivotal. The Court identified at least five separate litigations pursued by Trimurti between 2016 and 2020, which it tabulated in the judgment, demonstrating that the promoter's claim of being out of touch with Indian affairs during this period was demonstrably false. These included Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Comm Suit (L) No.459/2017 before the Bombay High Court dated August 22, 2017, Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8999, Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s Eagle Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. in Comm IP Suit No.314/2017 before the Bombay High Court dated December 22, 2018, and Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Rohit Shetty Pictures LLP & Ors. in Comm IP Suit No.1015/2019 before the Bombay High Court dated March 5, 2020.
The Court examined the affidavits filed by promoter Rajiv Rai and by Mr. Umesh G. Mehta, Trimurti's representative in India. Rai's affidavit dated May 11, 2026 attempted to explain the non-disclosures by claiming that he had inadvertently forgotten about the 2016 notice when instructing his lawyers to draft the 2026 plaint, and that the use of 'Gali Gali' in KGF Chapter 1 had escaped his attention because it was a Kannada film. The Court found these explanations deeply unconvincing. Mehta's affidavit of May 10, 2026 contradicted the position taken in the plaint about his authority and role. The Court observed that the affidavits not only failed to align with the plaint and the rejoinder but in many instances contradicted them directly. While carefully noting that these observations should not be taken as a final view on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the affidavits did not instill confidence in the truthfulness of the plaint's recitals and that the non-explanations amounted to a form of continued suppression.
The Court also dealt with Trimurti's argument, based on the Supreme Court judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory versus Collector of Central Excise, A.P.: (2006) 11 SCC 573, that facts already known to the defendant need not be disclosed by the plaintiff and cannot constitute suppression. The Court firmly rejected this argument by pointing out that the duty of disclosure to the court exists independently of whether the defendant happens to know the facts. The Court gave a compelling illustration — if the defendant had not appeared at the first hearing, the court might well have granted an ex parte injunction without knowing any of the suppressed facts. The defendant's knowledge cannot protect the court from being misled, and the duty to disclose runs to the court, not merely to the other party.
The Court then turned to the question of the conduct of the plaintiff over the preceding decade. Super Cassettes had not merely asserted rights under the 1988 agreement — it had actually exercised those rights by incorporating 'Tridev' songs in 'Azhar' in 2016 and in 'K.G.F: Chapter 1' in 2019, both times without any legal challenge from Trimurti after the initial notice-reply exchange in 2016. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjit Singh Salwan versus Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1697 for the proposition that a party cannot be allowed to remain in deep slumber while others build commercial and financial positions in reliance on the absence of any legal challenge, and then suddenly awaken and seek to disrupt those positions. The Court noted that defendants no.1 and no.2 had invested enormous sums of money and effort in producing 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' in reliance on the rights licensed by defendant no.3, and that causing them financial ruin at the interim stage purely because of the plaintiff's delayed awakening was inequitable.
The Court then examined the 1988 agreement in considerable detail. It noted a crucial distinction between the present agreement and the agreement examined by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. versus Amrit Sharma & Ors.: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3772, on which Trimurti had placed heavy reliance. In Shemaroo, the Bombay Court had found that a similar assignment was limited to record-based exploitation. However, Justice Gedela observed that the present agreement had a distinctive feature absent in the Shemaroo agreement — it explicitly defined "the said work" as including literary, dramatic, musical, record and cinematographic film copyrights in the film 'Tridev'. Paragraph 2(i) assigned all rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the said work. Paragraph 2(xi) granted the right to make or authorize the making of any versions of the said work. Paragraph 7 allowed Super Cassettes to adapt and combine the said work with any other work. Paragraph 8 made Super Cassettes the owner of the original master plates and the author of the records. Paragraph 12 extended all rights and obligations under the assignment to all songs, dialogues and sequences in the film, irrespective of whether they appeared in the final version. Reading all these provisions together and harmoniously, the Court concluded prima facie that the agreement appeared to grant Super Cassettes very broad rights over the musical, literary and dramatic content of 'Tridev', with the only exclusion being the cinematograph film 'Tridev' itself. The Court further observed that this interpretation appeared to be confirmed by the parties' own subsequent conduct — the failure to challenge the use of 'Tridev' songs in 'Azhar' and 'KGF: Chapter 1' was consistent with an understanding that Super Cassettes had such rights, and was inconsistent with Trimurti's current claim that no such rights existed.
On the question of the OTT-specific injunction, the Court found a fundamental legal incongruity in the position urged by the plaintiff. Trimurti was effectively asking the court to hold that the presence of 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)' in 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' was permissible when the film played in a cinema hall but became an infringing act the moment the same film was streamed on an OTT platform. Justice Gedela held that this distinction was legally inconceivable and could not be countenanced. The legal character of an act cannot change depending on the medium through which the same content is transmitted. If the use of the song infringed copyright, it did so in cinemas too and the cinema release would have needed to be addressed. If it did not infringe in cinemas, there was no basis to restrain it on OTT. The Court relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in John Hart Jr. versus Mukul Deora: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3499 for the proposition that where any loss suffered by a party is adequately compensable in monetary terms, an injunction restraining the release of a film ought not to be granted.
On the doctrine of contra proferentem — the rule that ambiguity in a contract should be resolved against the party that drafted it, which Trimurti invoked because Super Cassettes had drafted the 1988 agreement — the Court held that this doctrine only comes into play when there is genuine ambiguity. Having analyzed the agreement and found its provisions to be sufficiently clear on a prima facie reading, the Court declined to apply the doctrine at this stage.
Crucially, however, the Court did not entirely abandon Trimurti. It identified one specific provision in the 1988 agreement that worked in Trimurti's favor in a limited way. Paragraph 1(b) of the agreement defined "record" to include any disc, tape, perforated roll and all other devices "now or hereafter known" in which sounds are embodied for reproduction. The Court interpreted the phrase "now or hereafter known" as a forward-looking clause that was deliberately designed to capture technological developments that could not have been foreseen in 1988, and held that this language was broad enough to cover digital streaming platforms such as Spotify, Gaana, Saavn, JioSaavn, YouTube Music and Apple Music that had come into existence decades after the agreement was signed. Reading this together with paragraphs 2(xi) and 7, the Court found it plausible that Super Cassettes' exploitation of the remixed version on digital music platforms might generate royalty obligations toward Trimurti under the agreement, even if the broader synchronization right was arguably covered by the assignment. To protect against this potential monetary loss while the suit proceeded to trial, the Court directed Super Cassettes to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs in court within four weeks, to be invested in a fixed deposit by the Registrar General, with the accrued amount to benefit whichever party ultimately succeeds at trial.
Final Decision of the Court: Court declined to grant any interim injunction in favor of Trimurti Films. The application was disposed of with the sole direction that Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs in court within four weeks of the date of the order — May 14, 2026 — in the name of the Registrar General of the High Court, who was directed to invest the amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit with an auto-renewable clause. The Court clarified expressly that all its observations and conclusions were confined to the interim application and would not be treated as any expression on the final merits of the suit, leaving all questions entirely open for determination at trial.
Points of Law Settled in the Case:The most important principle affirmed is that the duty of full disclosure to the court is absolute and is owed to the court itself, not merely to the opposing party. The fact that a defendant may be aware of facts not disclosed in a plaint does not cure the suppression or excuse the plaintiff from its duty. A court considering interim relief in ex parte or advance-notice situations would be misled by such non-disclosure, and the possibility of that outcome itself constitutes a serious breach of the duty owed to the court. The second principle is that even where a party has some semblance of statutory or contractual rights, the court is not bound to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in that party's favor if its conduct — including suppression, concealment, inconsistency and prolonged inaction in circumstances where others have altered their positions — makes the exercise of such discretion inequitable. The existence of a legal right does not automatically entitle a party to equitable interim relief. The third important point concerns the interpretation of old copyright assignment agreements in the context of new technology. The Court held that the phrase "now or hereafter known" in a 1988 agreement defining what constitutes a "record" is sufficiently broad to include digital streaming platforms that came into existence decades after the agreement. This has significant implications for old Bollywood music agreements and their applicability to the digital economy. The fourth principle is about the legal impossibility of medium-specific copyright — the Court firmly held that the legal character of an act of communication to the public cannot differ depending on whether it is done in a cinema hall or on an OTT platform. The same use is either infringing or it is not, regardless of the medium. The fifth principle, while not entirely new but powerfully restated, is that sustained inaction by a copyright owner while another party openly exercises rights under a contract — especially when that other party has asserted those rights through formal notices and made substantial commercial investments in reliance on the absence of any legal challenge — generates an equitable estoppel that courts will give serious weight to when considering interim relief, even if statutory acquiescence under the Copyright Act, 1957 does not formally exist.
Case Title: Trimurti Films Private Limited versus B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Order: May 14, 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 378/2026, I.A. 10246/2026 & I.A. 10293/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4280
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journals
Tirchi Topiwale Copyright Battle: Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against Dhurandhar The Revenge Over Suppression of Facts
Suppression of Material Facts Defeats Copyright Injunction: Trimurti Films vs Super Cassettes in Delhi High Court 2026
When Old Bollywood Music Agreements Meet New Digital Rights: Lessons from Trimurti Films vs B62 Studios
Clean Hands Doctrine in Copyright Law: How Concealment Cost Trimurti Films Its Interim Injunction
Scope of 1988 Music Assignment Agreements and Digital Streaming Rights: Delhi High Court's Analysis in Trimurti Films Case
Trimurti Films Loses Bid to Block Dhurandhar The Revenge OTT Release: Delhi High Court's Landmark Copyright Order
Copyright Assignment and Synchronization Rights in Bollywood: Key Lessons from CS COMM 378 of 2026
Inaction as Equitable Estoppel in Copyright Disputes: Delhi High Court's Ruling in Trimurti Films vs JIO Studios
How Prolonged Silence on Copyright Infringement Can Defeat Interim Relief: Analyzing the Tirchi Topiwale Case
OTT Platform Copyright Disputes in India 2026: Delhi High Court's Nuanced Ruling in the Tridev Song Case
SEO Tags
Copyright Infringement India, Tirchi Topiwale Copyright Case, Trimurti Films, B62 Studios, Super Cassettes Industries, T-Series Copyright, JIO Studios, Dhurandhar The Revenge, Tridev Film 1988, Bollywood Copyright Dispute, Copyright Act 1957, Section 14 Copyright Act, Music Assignment Agreement, Synchronization Rights India, OTT Platform Copyright, Interim Injunction Copyright India, Clean Hands Doctrine India, Suppression of Material Facts, Discretionary Relief IP, Delhi High Court Copyright 2026, Rang De Lal Oye Oye, Sound Recording Rights India, Remix Rights Bollywood, Film Producer Copyright, Digital Streaming Rights India, Royalty Agreement India, Music Copyright Assignment, Wander Limited v Antox India, Nizam Sugar Factory Case, Kent RO System Gattubhai, Shemaroo Entertainment Case, Bengal Waterproof Copyright, Midas Hygiene Copyright, John Hart Jr v Mukul Deora, Bollywood IP Litigation 2026, Copyright Equitable Estoppel, Suppressio Veri Suggestio Falsi, CS COMM 378 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Contra Proferentem Copyright, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
Trimurti Films Private Limited v. B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.
CS(COMM) 378/2026 | 2026:DHC:4280 | High Court of Delhi | May 14, 2026 | Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Copyright Act, 1957 — Sections 14, 21 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 — Interim Injunction — Suppression of Material Facts — Clean Hands Doctrine — Copyright Assignment Agreement — Synchronization Rights — Digital Streaming — OTT Platform — Equitable Estoppel
Plaintiff, producer of cinematograph film 'Tridev' (1988), claimed copyright in song 'Tirchi Topiwale' (lyrics: Anand Bakshi; music: Kalyanji-Anandji) and alleged that its remixed version 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)' was incorporated without authorization in 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' (released March 19, 2026) by the defendants. Plaintiff contended that assignment agreement dated June 30, 1988 with defendant no.3 Super Cassettes Industries was confined to record-based exploitation through cassettes and gramophone records and did not encompass synchronization rights or incorporation in another cinematograph film. Defendant no.3 placed on record: (i) legal notice dated April 26, 2016 issued by plaintiff alleging infringement of 'Tridev' songs in film 'Azhar'; (ii) reply notice dated May 2, 2016 by defendant no.3 asserting complete rights; (iii) documentary proof of plaintiff's active litigation between 2016-2020 contradicting its claim of being unaware of industry affairs; (iv) use of 'Tridev' song in 'K.G.F: Chapter 1' (2019) without any legal challenge by plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to disclose these facts in its plaint. Held: (1) Duty of full disclosure in interim injunction proceedings is owed to the court and not merely to the opposing party; the fact that the defendant was aware of suppressed facts does not cure the non-disclosure; Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise (2006) 11 SCC 573 distinguished. (2) Suppression of material facts — including notices exchanged in 2016, active litigation from 2016-2020, and use of songs in two prior films — constituted conduct that disentitled the plaintiff from discretionary equitable relief; "suppressio veri suggestio falsi" applies. (3) Prima facie, harmonious reading of paragraphs 2(i), 2(xi), 7, 8 and 12 of the 1988 agreement appeared to confer broad rights in musical, literary and dramatic works on defendant no.3, excluding only the cinematograph film itself; Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. Amrit Sharma: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3772 distinguished on ground that present agreement contained distinct definition of "the said work". (4) Medium-specific copyright injunction legally untenable — use of song cannot be permissible in cinema halls but infringing on OTT platform, as legal character of communication to the public cannot differ by medium; John Hart Jr. v. Mukul Deora: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3499 applied. (5) Prolonged inaction by copyright owner while other party openly exercises rights, issues formal notices and makes commercial investments in reliance on absence of legal challenge constitutes equitable conduct relevant to grant of interim relief, even if statutory acquiescence does not exist under the Copyright Act, 1957; Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1697 applied. (6) Phrase "now or hereafter known" in definition of "record" in paragraph 1(b) of 1988 agreement held broad enough to include digital music streaming platforms; potential royalty obligations on defendant no.3 toward plaintiff for digital exploitation recognized. Interim injunction refused. Defendant no.3 directed to deposit Rs.50 Lakhs in court within four weeks to be invested in interest-bearing fixed deposit for benefit of successful party at trial.
====
