In an interim application in a suit filed before the Delhi High Court under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), seeking interim injunction against the defendants to restrain the copyright infringement of Trimurti Films Private Ltd (Trimurti Films) by incorporating the sound recording ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ from the film ‘Tridev’ both in its original form and as a remixed version in the film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, did not accede to the plaintiff’s prayers, but directed defendant 3 to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs to balance equity.
Trimurti Films was a film production house founded in 1969 by the late Mr. Gulshan Rai and managed by his son, Mr. Rajiv Rai. Trimurti films claimed to be the first owner of the copyright in the said song, including the underlying literary work, the musical work, and the sound recording. It was claimed that by an agreement dated 30-06-1988, Trimurti Films assigned limited rights to Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited (defendant 3). Around March 2026, Trimurti Films discovered that the defendants had created a remixed version of the song titled ‘Rang De Lal’ and incorporated both the remixed version as well as the original sound of the said song in ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’.
The Court stated that while considering an application under order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, courts must be guided by a triple test, i.e., whether there exists a prima facie strong case in the plaintiff’s favour, whether the balance of convenience lies in plaintiff’s favour, and whether irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The Court noted the plaintiff’s contention that the said agreement was with respect to the rights and title over the musical, literary and dramatic works of the songs of the film ‘Tridev’. It was also contended that the royalty stipulated in the agreement was never paid to the plaintiff at any point in time.
Regarding the previous exploitation by defendant 3 in films such as ‘Azhar’ and ‘KGF: Chapter 1’, it was contended that the plaintiff’s inaction would not bar the plaintiff from approaching this court by way of the present suit. The court noted that the promoter (Mr. Rajiv Rai) of Trimurti Films claimed to have left India in 1997 and that he had returned only in 2018- 19. It was asserted that this was the reason that the promoter was not in touch with the affairs of the industry and had no knowledge of any misuse of any works over which the plaintiff had copyrights.
The Court noted that Trimurti Films had made a passing reference in the plaint stating that it was aware that the song had been used in the film ‘Azhar’. The Court took note of the material placed by defendant 3 including the notice dated 26-04-2016 issued by Trimurti Films to 3 entities, a reply notice dated 02-05-2016 issued by defendant 3 on behalf of the said 3 entities, proof of delivery, a number of orders and judgements of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench and the Bombay High Court in suits and other proceedings by Trimurti Films during 2016 to 2020.
The Court found it intriguing how the promoter of Trimurti Films sought to explain away the non-disclosure of material facts in the plaint. The Court perused his affidavit and observed that he had stated facts which did not appear to be in line with either the plant, the application seeking interim relief, or the rejoinder. It was said that the affidavit did not instil confidence in the contents of the plaint, and even though it may not mean that Trimurti Films did not have a case on merits. However, for considering an application seeking interim relief under discretionary jurisdiction, the same gathered great significance.
Further, the Court stated that the affidavit by Trimurti Films’ manager was completely contrary to the stand taken by Trimurti Films regarding the legal authorization conferred upon him, as well as regarding the controversy surrounding the film ‘Azhar’. It was noted that the use of the remixed version of the song ‘Gali Gali’ in ‘KGF: Chapter 1’ was not referred to by anyone. The Court opined that the insufficiency and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the non-disclosure of material facts amounted to suppression. The Court stated that almost 7 to 9 years had elapsed since the previous alleged infringements regarding the same cinematograph film, against which Trimurti Films did not even move a muscle. It was said that to assert that the Court was bound to exercise discretionary relief in such compelling circumstances was untenable.
It was noted that on account of complete inaction, defendant 3 altered its position which could not now be rendered detrimental. The Court said that the defendants had invested huge sums of money, time, and effort in producing ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and could not now be put to a disadvantageous position, and be directed to undergo huge financial losses, as and when the plaintiff chooses to awaken from its deep slumber. Hence, the Court held that it was impossible to accept the plaintiffs request to exercise any discretionary relief.
The Court perused the agreement in a holistic and harmonious manner and opined that granting all rights and title in the musical, literary and dramatic works in the “said work” i.e., which included the cinematograph film, but excluded the cinematograph film by itself by incorporation in the definition of record contained in the agreement. The Court found this to be the sole reason why defendant 3 had not exploited the copyright in the film ‘Tridev’ by itself. It was found that defendant 3 was at liberty to produce/reproduce remixed versions of the songs in ‘Tridev’. The Court found this to be the only reason why Trimurti Films did not initiate any legal action regarding the use and exploitation of certain songs in the films ‘Azhar’ and ‘KGF: Chapter 1’.
To do complete justice and to balance equity for ensuring that Trimurti Films does not suffer any monetary loss because of the fact that the defendants were exploiting the remixed version of ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ on digital music platforms, and might be liable to pay royalties due to the agreement, the Court directed defendant 3 to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs within 4 weeks in the Court, and stated that this amount would go to the benefit of the successful party at the end of the trial. Thus, the application was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Plaintiff – Ms. Swathi Sukumar (Sr. Adv), Mr. R.A. Iyer, Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Ms. Rishika Aggarwal, Ms. Anshu Tulsyan
For Defendants – Mr. Ravi Prakash (Sr. Adv), Mr. Sandeep Sethi (Sr. Adv), Mr. Akhil Sibal (Sr. Adv), Mr. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Parag Khandhar, Ms. Anaheet Verma, Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Ms. Charu Sharma, Mr. Ameet N., Ms. Madhu Gadolia, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Unnati Gambhani, Mr. Aman Pathak, Ms. Vinayika Shahi, Ms. Shruti Sharma, Mr. Krishna G., Ms. Shreya Sethi, Ms. Riya Kumar, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan, Ms. Asavari Jain, Mr. Shivansh Tiwari, Mr. Tarun Tripathi, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj, Mr. Krishnesh Bapat
