The Delhi High Court has declined to halt the digital release of the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge, rejecting a plea for an ad-interim injunction over the alleged unauthorized use of a remixed version of the iconic 1989 song “Tirchi Topiwale.” Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that stopping the film’s release on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms after it had already completed a theatrical run would create an “inconceivable” legal situation.
The dispute was brought by Trimurti Films Private Limited, the producers of the blockbuster Tridev, who alleged that the defendants infringed upon their copyright by using a remixed version of the song, titled “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye),” in the new film.
In its order delivered on May 14, the High Court highlighted a significant logical hurdle in the plaintiff’s request. The film Dhurandhar: The Revenge had already been released in cinema halls on March 19.
Justice Gedela observed that granting an injunction specifically for digital streaming while the song was permitted in theaters would be contradictory. “In that, so far as the broadcasting of the said cinematograph film in Cinema Halls/Movie theatres is concerned, the presence of the alleged infringing song/remixed version would be permissible, whereas the same would become an infringing act so far as the OTT platforms are concerned. This, to the mind of this Court, is inconceivable and cannot be countenanced,” the court stated.
A central point of the legal battle involved a decades-old assignment agreement dated June 30, 1988, between Trimurti Films and Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited.
Representing Trimurti Films, Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar argued that the agreement only granted limited rights for record-based exploitation, such as cassettes and gramophone records. She contended that Trimurti retained the rights to synchronize the song into any other cinematograph film.
However, Super Cassettes, represented by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, argued that the 1988 contract was a broad assignment of all rights and interests in the musical and literary works. The court noted that the agreement used the phrase “now or hereafter known” regarding sound reproduction devices. Justice Gedela remarked that this language, on the face of it, appeared to contemplate future technical advancements, including modern digital streaming.
The court’s refusal to grant the injunction was also influenced by what it termed the “suppression of material facts” by the plaintiff. The court found that Trimurti Films failed to disclose a 2016 legal notice issued by its own counsel and several other lawsuits it had pursued between 2016 and 2020.
Furthermore, the plaintiff’s claim that it could not monitor infringements because its promoter had been abroad since 1997 was dismissed by the court. Justice Gedela pointed out that records showed the company had been active in litigation during that very period, contradicting the claim of being unable to track copyright violations.
While refusing to stay the OTT release, the court sought to protect the financial interests of the parties involved. It directed Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited to deposit ₹50 lakh with the Registrar General to “balance the equities” of the case as the litigation continues.
