{"id":24466,"date":"2026-05-17T05:26:36","date_gmt":"2026-05-17T05:26:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=24466"},"modified":"2026-05-17T05:39:26","modified_gmt":"2026-05-17T05:39:26","slug":"clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Clean Hands Doctrine in Copyright Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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&#8217;s activity before the full facts of a dispute have been examined in a trial.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Delhi_High_Court_In_Trimurti_Films_vs_B62_Studios_Case\" >Delhi High Court In Trimurti Films vs B62 Studios Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Key_Legal_Issues_In_The_Case\" >Key Legal Issues In The Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Significance_Of_The_Judgment\" >Significance Of The Judgment<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Court_Directions_And_Relief_Granted\" >Court Directions And Relief Granted<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Case_Highlights_At_A_Glance\" >Case Highlights At A Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Legal_Principles_Discussed\" >Legal Principles Discussed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Release_Of_%E2%80%98Dhurandhar_The_Revenge_And_New_Controversy\" >Release Of \u2018Dhurandhar: The Revenge\u2019 And New Controversy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Civil_Suit_And_Interim_Injunction_Before_Delhi_High_Court\" >Civil Suit And Interim Injunction Before Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Core_Legal_Dispute_In_The_Case\" >Core Legal Dispute In The Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Interpretation_Of_The_1988_Assignment_Agreement\" >Interpretation Of The 1988 Assignment Agreement<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Trimurti_Films_Arguments\" >Trimurti Films\u2019 Arguments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Super_Cassettes_Arguments\" >Super Cassettes\u2019 Arguments<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Suppression_Of_Material_Facts_Allegation\" >Suppression Of Material Facts Allegation<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#2016_Legal_Notice_Related_To_%E2%80%98Azhar\" >2016 Legal Notice Related To \u2018Azhar\u2019<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#%E2%80%98KGF_Chapter_1_Song_Use\" >\u2018K.G.F: Chapter 1\u2019 Song Use<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Contradiction_Regarding_Rajiv_Rai\" >Contradiction Regarding Rajiv Rai<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#OTT_Injunction_And_Practical_Legal_Question\" >OTT Injunction And Practical Legal Question<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Key_Issues_Before_The_Delhi_High_Court\" >Key Issues Before The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Importance_Of_The_Case_For_Copyright_Law\" >Importance Of The Case For Copyright Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Principle_Of_Clean_Hands_And_Suppression_Of_Facts\" >Principle Of Clean Hands And Suppression Of Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Litigation_And_Material_Facts_Examined_By_The_Court\" >Litigation And Material Facts Examined By The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Important_Cases_Referred_By_The_Court\" >Important Cases Referred By The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Court_Analysis_Of_Affidavits_And_Explanations\" >Court Analysis Of Affidavits And Explanations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Duty_Of_Disclosure_To_The_Court\" >Duty Of Disclosure To The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Delay_Laches_And_Commercial_Conduct\" >Delay, Laches And Commercial Conduct<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Interpretation_Of_The_1988_Agreement\" >Interpretation Of The 1988 Agreement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Important_Clauses_Highlighted_By_The_Court\" >Important Clauses Highlighted By The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#OTT_Platform_And_Copyright_Infringement_Issues\" >OTT Platform And Copyright Infringement Issues<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Contra_Proferentem_Doctrine_Analysis\" >Contra Proferentem Doctrine Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Digital_Streaming_Rights_And_Royalty_Issue\" >Digital Streaming Rights And Royalty Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Court_Direction_On_Security_Deposit\" >Court Direction On Security Deposit<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court-2\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Points_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Points of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Duty_of_Full_Disclosure_to_the_Court\" >Duty of Full Disclosure to the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Equitable_Relief_and_Conduct_of_Parties\" >Equitable Relief and Conduct of Parties<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Copyright_Agreements_and_Digital_Streaming_Platforms\" >Copyright Agreements and Digital Streaming Platforms<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Medium-Neutral_Approach_to_Copyright_Law\" >Medium-Neutral Approach to Copyright Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Equitable_Estoppel_and_Copyright_Inaction\" >Equitable Estoppel and Copyright Inaction<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clean-hands-doctrine-in-copyright-law\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"delhi-high-court-trimurti-films-vs-b62-studios-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Delhi_High_Court_In_Trimurti_Films_vs_B62_Studios_Case\"><\/span>Delhi High Court In Trimurti Films vs B62 Studios Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement delivered on May 14, 2026, by the <strong>High Court of Delhi<\/strong> in the case of <strong>Trimurti Films Private Limited versus B62 Studios Private Limited and Others<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The case involves the legendary Bollywood song <strong>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/strong> from the 1988 blockbuster film <strong>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/strong>, a song that defined an era and remains instantly recognisable to generations of Hindi film lovers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-legal-issues-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Issues_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Key Legal Issues In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute raises fascinating questions about the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The scope of old copyright assignment agreements<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The rights of film producers versus music labels<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The legal significance of long periods of inaction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The extent to which a court exercising discretionary jurisdiction can and must look beyond the technical merits of a claim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The overall conduct of the party seeking relief<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"significance-of-the-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Significance_Of_The_Judgment\"><\/span>Significance Of The Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement is significant not only for what it decides but also for the manner in which it decides it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court engages with complex contractual language from a 1988 agreement, tracks the plaintiff&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-directions-and-relief-granted\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Directions_And_Relief_Granted\"><\/span>Court Directions And Relief Granted<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court directed <strong>Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited<\/strong>, the music label that is defendant no. 3, to deposit <strong>Rs 50 lakhs<\/strong> in court as a protective measure, while leaving the final determination of rights to trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-highlights-at-a-glance\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Highlights_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Case Highlights At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Case Name<\/td><td>Trimurti Films Private Limited vs B62 Studios Private Limited and Others<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment<\/td><td>May 14, 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Subject Matter<\/td><td>Copyright and Intellectual Property Dispute<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Song Involved<\/td><td>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Film<\/td><td>&#8216;Tridev&#8217; (1988)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Main Legal Relief Sought<\/td><td>Interim Injunction<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Important Observation<\/td><td>A party seeking equity must approach the court with clean hands<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Protective Direction<\/td><td>Deposit of Rs 50 Lakhs by Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-principles-discussed\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_Discussed\"><\/span>Legal Principles Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Doctrine of clean hands in equity jurisdiction<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Discretionary nature of interim injunctions<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Copyright assignment interpretation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Effect of suppression and concealment of material facts<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Balancing equities in intellectual property disputes<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rights of music labels and film producers<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Factual and Procedural Background:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti Films Private Limited is one of Bollywood&#8217;s most iconic production houses. Founded in 1969 by the late Gulshan Rai, it produced some of Hindi cinema&#8217;s most memorable films across several decades, including <em>Tridev<\/em>, <em>Vishwatma<\/em>, <em>Mohra<\/em>, <em>Deewar<\/em> and <em>Gupt<\/em>. The company is currently managed by Gulshan Rai&#8217;s son Rajiv Rai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The film <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em>, released in 1988, became a massive commercial success and is remembered particularly for its music, including the unforgettable song <em>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/em>, with lyrics penned by the legendary Anand Bakshi and music composed by the equally legendary duo Kalyanji-Anandji.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The agreement assigned certain rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the songs of <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em> to Super Cassettes, in exchange for royalty payments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The precise scope of what was assigned under this agreement \u2014 and what was retained by Trimurti Films \u2014 became the central contractual battleground in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trimurti claimed the assignment was narrow, covering only the manufacture and sale of cassettes and gramophone records.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trimurti argued that the agreement did not extend to incorporating the songs in any other cinematographic film.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Super Cassettes claimed the assignment was broad and transferred all rights in the underlying literary, dramatic and musical works.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Super Cassettes argued that it had the freedom to exploit those works in any manner it chose, including remixed versions in new films.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"release-of-dhurandhar-the-revenge-and-new-controversy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Release_Of_%E2%80%98Dhurandhar_The_Revenge_And_New_Controversy\"><\/span>Release Of \u2018Dhurandhar: The Revenge\u2019 And New Controversy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In or around the fourth week of March 2026, Trimurti Films discovered that a new Bollywood film titled <em>&#8216;Dhurandhar: The Revenge&#8217;<\/em> had been released on March 19, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the said film, a remixed version of <em>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/em>, retitled <em>&#8216;Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)&#8217;<\/em>, had been incorporated, playing during the closing credits of the film.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It was also claimed that the original sound recording of <em>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/em> itself was used within the film.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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 <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em> before incorporating the song.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The remixed version was also being exploited on multiple digital music platforms, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Jio<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Saavn<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Gaana<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Spotify<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>YouTube<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Apple Music<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Trimurti Films, the exploitation of the song across these platforms generated substantial commercial revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"civil-suit-and-interim-injunction-before-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Civil_Suit_And_Interim_Injunction_Before_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Civil Suit And Interim Injunction Before Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti filed a civil suit and an application for interim injunction before the Delhi High Court on April 9, 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Infringing its copyright in <em>&#8216;Tirchi Topiwale&#8217;<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Releasing the film <em>&#8216;Dhurandhar: The Revenge&#8217;<\/em> on OTT platforms to the extent it contained the song.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>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 following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Further exploitation of the song in the forthcoming OTT release of the film.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Streaming and monetisation across digital music platforms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"core-legal-dispute-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Dispute_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Core Legal Dispute In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute operated simultaneously on several levels, each of which the court was required to examine carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interpretation-of-the-1988-assignment-agreement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpretation_Of_The_1988_Assignment_Agreement\"><\/span>Interpretation Of The 1988 Assignment Agreement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The first and most fundamental level concerned the interpretation of the agreement dated June 30, 1988.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"trimurti-films-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trimurti_Films_Arguments\"><\/span>Trimurti Films\u2019 Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti&#8217;s position was straightforward \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Trimurti:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Any rights not explicitly assigned remained with Trimurti as the producer of <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The right to incorporate the songs into another cinematographic film was never granted to Super Cassettes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Synchronisation rights, therefore, continued to remain with Trimurti Films.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti also drew attention to the definition of \u201crecord\u201d in Clause (b) of Paragraph 1 of the agreement, which specifically excluded \u201ca sound track associated with a cinematograph film\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the plaintiff, this showed that the agreement was confined to standalone music recordings and not film synchronisation rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"super-cassettes-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Super_Cassettes_Arguments\"><\/span>Super Cassettes\u2019 Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes presented a dramatically different reading of the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The company argued that paragraph 2 of the agreement assigned the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>All rights, title and interest in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the film.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rights of publication, sound broadcasting and public performance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mechanical reproduction and recording rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Super cassettes further relied upon the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Paragraph 2(xi), which granted the right to make or authorise versions of the said work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 7, which allowed adaptation, alteration and combination of the work with any other work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 8, which granted ownership of the original master recordings and authorship of the records.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 12, which extended the assignment to all songs, dialogues and sequences in the film.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>According to Super Cassettes, the combined effect of these clauses amounted to an almost complete assignment of musical, literary and dramatic rights, with only the cinematograph film of <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em> itself remaining with Trimurti Films.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"suppression-of-material-facts-allegation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suppression_Of_Material_Facts_Allegation\"><\/span>Suppression Of Material Facts Allegation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The second level of the dispute concerned what the Court described as suppression of material facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes revealed a series of facts that Trimurti had allegedly failed to disclose in its plaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"2016-legal-notice-related-to-azhar\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2016_Legal_Notice_Related_To_%E2%80%98Azhar\"><\/span>2016 Legal Notice Related To \u2018Azhar\u2019<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>In April 2016, Trimurti had issued a legal notice through its law firm, Vox Law, represented by advocate Mr Amey Nargolkar, to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Balaji Motion Pictures<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sony Pictures Networks India<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DJ Chetas<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The notice alleged infringement of two <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em> songs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>&#8216;Gali Gali Mein Phirta Hai&#8217;<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>&#8216;Gajar Ne Kiya Hai Ishara&#8217;<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These songs were allegedly used in the film <em>&#8216;Azhar&#8217;<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes responded on May 2, 2016 asserting complete rights under the 1988 agreement and directing Trimurti to withdraw its notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti never replied to this notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite this earlier dispute, Trimurti&#8217;s plaint made only a passing and unexplained reference to the film <em>&#8216;Azhar&#8217;<\/em> without disclosing the notice or its reply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"kgf-chapter-1-song-use\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"%E2%80%98KGF_Chapter_1_Song_Use\"><\/span>\u2018K.G.F: Chapter 1\u2019 Song Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes also pointed out that another <em>&#8216;Tridev&#8217;<\/em> song, <em>&#8216;Gali Gali&#8217;<\/em>, was incorporated in the blockbuster Kannada-Hindi film <em>&#8216;K.G.F: Chapter 1&#8217;<\/em> in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the defendants, Trimurti had taken no legal action against that use either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"contradiction-regarding-rajiv-rai\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contradiction_Regarding_Rajiv_Rai\"><\/span>Contradiction Regarding Rajiv Rai<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Additional documents allegedly showed that Trimurti had actively pursued at least five separate lawsuits between 2016 and 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This allegedly contradicted the plaintiff\u2019s claim 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes also produced a screenshot from the 2025 film <em>&#8216;Zora&#8217;<\/em> produced by Trimurti, which clearly showed Mr Amey Nargolkar&#8217;s name in the legal credits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to the defendants, this demonstrated that Trimurti&#8217;s claimed ignorance of its own legal counsel was incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ott-injunction-and-practical-legal-question\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"OTT_Injunction_And_Practical_Legal_Question\"><\/span>OTT Injunction And Practical Legal Question<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The third level of the dispute concerned the practical legal question of whether an OTT-specific injunction was legally coherent, given that the film had already been released in cinemas with the same allegedly infringing song.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-issues-before-the-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Issues_Before_The_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Key Issues Before The Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Scope of Assignment<\/td><td>Whether the 1988 agreement transferred synchronisation rights to Super Cassettes.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Copyright Ownership<\/td><td>Whether Trimurti retained rights over the incorporation of songs in future cinematographic films.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Suppression of Facts<\/td><td>Whether Trimurti concealed prior disputes and legal notices.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>OTT Release Injunction<\/td><td>Whether an injunction limited only to OTT exploitation was legally maintainable.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"importance-of-the-case-for-copyright-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Importance_Of_The_Case_For_Copyright_Law\"><\/span>Importance Of The Case For Copyright Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The case raises important questions relating to the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Music copyright assignments in Bollywood.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Synchronisation rights in cinematographic films.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rights of music labels versus film producers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use of remixed songs in modern OTT-era productions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interpretation of old copyright agreements in the digital streaming age.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute is also significant because it involves one of Bollywood\u2019s most iconic songs and one of India\u2019s largest music companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court\u2019s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Film producers<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Music labels<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>OTT platforms<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Digital music streaming services<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Future remix and adaptation rights in Indian cinema<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u2014 whether the applicant has a prima facie strong case, whether the balance of convenience favours granting relief, and whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if relief were refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But beyond this triple test, the Court emphasised that relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary, as established by the Supreme Court in <strong>Wander Limited versus Antox India Pvt. Ltd: 1990 Supp SCC 727<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"principle-of-clean-hands-and-suppression-of-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Principle_Of_Clean_Hands_And_Suppression_Of_Facts\"><\/span>Principle Of Clean Hands And Suppression Of Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>To elaborate on this principle, the Court extracted at length the judgement of a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court in <strong>Kent RO System Limited &amp; Anr. versus Gattubhai &amp; Ors: (2022) SCC OnLine Del 701<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That judgement 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The principle, as Justice Gedela articulated it, is captured in the classical maxim <em>&#8220;suppressio veri suggestio falsi&#8221;<\/em> \u2014 the suppression of truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"litigations-and-material-facts-examined-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Litigation_And_Material_Facts_Examined_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Litigation And Material Facts Examined By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then turned its attention to the extraordinary factual material that Super Cassettes had placed on record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The notice dated April 26, 2016, issued by Trimurti&#8217;s own law firm and the reply notice dated May 2, 2016, from Super Cassettes were pivotal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court identified at least five separate litigations pursued by Trimurti between 2016 and 2020, which it tabulated in the judgement, demonstrating that the promoter&#8217;s claim of being out of touch with Indian affairs during this period was demonstrably false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-cases-referred-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Cases_Referred_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Important Cases Referred By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case Name<\/th><th>Court<\/th><th>Date<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors.<\/td><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><td>August 22, 2017<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><td>2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8999<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus M\/s Eagle Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><td>December 22, 2018<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trimurti Films Pvt. Ltd. versus Rohit Shetty Pictures LLP &amp; Ors.<\/td><td>Bombay High Court<\/td><td>March 5, 2020<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-analysis-of-affidavits-and-explanations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Analysis_Of_Affidavits_And_Explanations\"><\/span>Court Analysis Of Affidavits And Explanations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court examined the affidavits filed by promoter Rajiv Rai and by Mr Umesh G. Mehta, Trimurti&#8217;s representative in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rai&#8217;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 &#8216;Gali Gali&#8217; in KGF Chapter 1 had escaped his attention because it was a Kannada film.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court found these explanations deeply unconvincing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mehta&#8217;s affidavit of May 10, 2026, contradicted the position taken in the plaint about his authority and role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court observed that the affidavits not only failed to align with the plaint and the rejoinder but in many instances contradicted them directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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 instil confidence in the truthfulness of the plaintiff&#8217;s recitals and that the non-explanations amounted to a form of continued suppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"duty-of-disclosure-to-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Duty_Of_Disclosure_To_The_Court\"><\/span>Duty Of Disclosure To The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court also dealt with Trimurti&#8217;s argument, based on the Supreme Court judgement in <strong>Nizam Sugar Factory versus Collector of Central Excise, A.P.: (2006) 11 SCC 573<\/strong>, that facts already known to the defendant need not be disclosed by the plaintiff and cannot constitute suppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court gave a compelling illustration \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The defendant&#8217;s knowledge cannot protect the court from being misled, and the duty to disclose runs to the court, not merely to the other party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"delay-laches-and-commercial-conduct\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Delay_Laches_And_Commercial_Conduct\"><\/span>Delay, Laches And Commercial Conduct<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then turned to the question of the conduct of the plaintiff over the preceding decade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Super Cassettes had not merely asserted rights under the 1988 agreement \u2014 it had actually exercised those rights by incorporating &#8216;Tridev&#8217; songs in &#8216;Azhar&#8217; in 2016 and in &#8216;K.G.F: Chapter 1&#8217; in 2019, both times without any legal challenge from Trimurti after the initial notice-reply exchange in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgement in <strong>Sanjit Singh Salwan versus Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1697<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court noted that defendants nos. 1 and 2 had invested enormous sums of money and effort in producing &#8216;Dhurandhar: The Revenge&#8217; 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&#8217;s delayed awakening was inequitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"interpretation-of-the-1988-agreement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interpretation_Of_The_1988_Agreement\"><\/span>Interpretation Of The 1988 Agreement<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court then examined the 1988 agreement in considerable detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It noted a crucial distinction between the present agreement and the agreement examined by the Division Bench of the <a href=\"\/lawyers\/bombay.htm\">Bombay High Court <\/a>in <strong>Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd versus Amrit Sharma &amp; Ors: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3772<\/strong>, on which Trimurti had placed heavy reliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Shemaroo, the Bombay Court had found that a similar assignment was limited to record-based exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, Justice Gedela observed that the present agreement had a distinctive feature absent in the Shemaroo agreement \u2014 it explicitly defined &#8220;the said work&#8221; as including literary, dramatic, musical, record and cinematographic film <a href=\"\/copyright\/register.htm\">copyrights<\/a> in the film &#8216;Tridev&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"important-clauses-highlighted-by-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Clauses_Highlighted_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Important Clauses Highlighted By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Paragraph 2(i) assigned all rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the said work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 2(xi) granted the right to make or authorise the making of any versions of the said work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 7 allowed Super Cassettes to adapt and combine the said work with any other work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Paragraph 8 made Super Cassettes the owner of the original master plates and the author of the records.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>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 &#8216;Tridev&#8217;, with the only exclusion being the cinematographic film &#8216;Tridev&#8217; itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court further observed that this interpretation appeared to be confirmed by the parties&#8217; own subsequent conduct \u2014 the failure to challenge the use of &#8216;Tridev&#8217; songs in &#8216;Azhar&#8217; and &#8216;KGF: Chapter 1&#8217; was consistent with an understanding that Super Cassettes had such rights and was inconsistent with Trimurti&#8217;s current claim that no such rights existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ott-platform-and-copyright-infringement-issue\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"OTT_Platform_And_Copyright_Infringement_Issues\"><\/span>OTT Platform And Copyright Infringement Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the question of the OTT-specific injunction, the Court found a fundamental legal incongruity in the position urged by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Trimurti was effectively asking the court to hold that the presence of &#8216;Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)&#8217; in &#8216;Dhurandhar: The Revenge&#8217; 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Gedela held that this distinction was legally inconceivable and could not be countenanced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The legal character of an act cannot change depending on the medium through which the same content is transmitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>If the use of the song infringed copyright, it did so in cinemas too, and the cinema release would have needed to be addressed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If it did not infringe in cinemas, there was no basis to restrain it on OTT.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court relied on the Delhi High Court judgement in <strong>John Hart Jr versus Mukul Deora: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3499<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"contra-proferentem-doctrine-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contra_Proferentem_Doctrine_Analysis\"><\/span>Contra Proferentem Doctrine Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On the doctrine of contra proferentem \u2014 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 \u2014 the court held that this doctrine only comes into play when there is genuine ambiguity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Having analysed 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"digital-streaming-rights-and-royalty-issue\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Digital_Streaming_Rights_And_Royalty_Issue\"><\/span>Digital Streaming Rights And Royalty Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Crucially, however, the Court did not entirely abandon Trimurti.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It identified one specific provision in the 1988 agreement that worked in Trimurti&#8217;s favour in a limited way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Paragraph 1(b) of the agreement defined &#8220;record&#8221; to include any disc, tape, perforated roll and all other devices &#8220;now or hereafter known&#8221; in which sounds are embodied for reproduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court interpreted the phrase &#8220;now or hereafter known&#8221; as a forward-looking clause that was deliberately designed to capture technological developments that could not have been foreseen in 1988.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court held that this language was broad enough to cover digital streaming platforms such as the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Spotify<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Gaana<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Saavn<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>JioSaavn<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>YouTube Music<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Apple Music<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These platforms had come into existence decades after the agreement was signed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reading this together with paragraphs 2(xi) and 7, the Court found it plausible that Super Cassettes&#8217; exploitation of the remixed version on digital music platforms might generate royalty obligations toward Trimurti under the agreement, even if the broader synchronisation right was arguably covered by the assignment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-direction-on-security-deposit\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Direction_On_Security_Deposit\"><\/span>Court Direction On Security Deposit<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court-2\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court declined to grant any interim injunction in favour 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 \u2014 May 14, 2026 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"points-of-law-settled-in-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Points_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Points of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"duty-of-full-disclosure-to-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Duty_of_Full_Disclosure_to_the_Court\"><\/span>Duty of Full Disclosure to the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Duty of disclosure is absolute.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The obligation is owed to the court itself.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Knowledge of the defendant does not cure suppression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Non-disclosure in interim proceedings is treated seriously.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>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&#8217;s favour if its conduct \u2014 including suppression, concealment, inconsistency and prolonged inaction in circumstances where others have altered their positions \u2014 makes the exercise of such discretion inequitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The existence of a legal right does not automatically entitle a party to equitable interim relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"equitable-relief-and-conduct-of-parties\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Equitable_Relief_and_Conduct_of_Parties\"><\/span>Equitable Relief and Conduct of Parties<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Courts consider conduct before granting interim relief.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suppression and concealment weaken equitable claims.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Delay and prolonged inaction may defeat discretionary relief.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Legal rights alone are insufficient for interim injunctions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The third important point concerns the interpretation of old copyright assignment agreements in the context of new technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court held that the phrase &#8220;now or hereafter known&#8221; in a 1988 agreement defining what constitutes a &#8220;record&#8221; is sufficiently broad to include digital streaming platforms that came into existence decades after the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This has significant implications for old Bollywood music agreements and their applicability to the digital economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"copyright-agreements-and-digital-streaming-platforms\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Copyright_Agreements_and_Digital_Streaming_Platforms\"><\/span>Copyright Agreements and Digital Streaming Platforms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Interpretation of &#8220;now or hereafter known&#8221;<\/td><td>Includes future technologies and digital streaming platforms<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1988 Copyright Agreement<\/td><td>Applies even in the OTT and streaming era<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Impact<\/td><td>Important for old Bollywood music copyright agreements<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The fourth principle is about the legal impossibility of medium-specific copyright \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The same use is either infringing or it is not, regardless of the medium.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"medium-neutral-approach-to-copyright-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Medium-Neutral_Approach_to_Copyright_Law\"><\/span>Medium-Neutral Approach to Copyright Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Copyright law applies uniformly across platforms.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Cinema hall and OTT platform communications are treated equally.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The nature of infringement does not change with technology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court rejected medium-specific copyright interpretation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>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 \u2014 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"equitable-estoppel-and-copyright-inaction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Equitable_Estoppel_and_Copyright_Inaction\"><\/span>Equitable Estoppel and Copyright Inaction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Long silence by a copyright owner may weaken claims.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Commercial investments made in reliance are legally relevant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Formal assertions of rights strengthen equitable defences.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts may apply equitable estoppel in interim relief matters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Trimurti Films Private Limited versus B62 Studios Private Limited &amp; Ors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Order<\/td><td>May 14, 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>CS(COMM) 378\/2026, I.A. 10246\/2026 &amp; I.A. 10293\/2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2026:DHC:4280<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Honourable Judge<\/td><td>Mr Justice Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/strong>Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br>\u00a0<br><strong>Written By:\u00a0Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/strong> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":24465,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-24466","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-intellectual-property","8":"tag-intellectual-property","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-10.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24466"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24562,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24466\/revisions\/24562"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24465"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}