Trimurti Films Private Limited vs B62 Studios Private Limited & Ors.

$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 14.05.2026

CS(COMM) 378/2026, I.A. 10246/2026 & I.A. 10293/2026

TRIMURTI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff

versus

B62 STUDIOS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.
R.A. Iyer, Mr. Ritik Raghuvanshi, Ms. Rishika
Aggarwal, Ms. Anshu Tulsyan, Advocates with
Mr. Umesh Mehta, AR of the plaintiff.


For the Defendants: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Nizam Pasha, Mr. Parag Khandhar, Ms. Anaheet
Verma, Mr. Sidharth Kaushik Ms. Astu
Khandelwal and Ms. Charu Sharma, Advocates
for D-1.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate alongwith
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 and
Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocates for D-2.
Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh
Kaushik, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Geetanjali
Visvanathan, Ms. Asavari Jain, Mr. Shivansh
Tiwari, Mr. Tarun Tripathi, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj and
Mr. Krishnesh Bapat, Advocates for D-3.

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 1 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
O R D E R

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
I.A. 9697/2026 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (heareinafter referred to as
“CPC” ) seeking interim injunction against the defendants restraining
infringement of copyright and other reliefs in relation to the plaintiff’s
rights in the sound recording/ song titled ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ from the
plaintiff’s cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ both in its original form and as a
remixed version, by incorporation of the same within the cinematograph
film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ .
2. Plaintiff claims that it is one of the India’s oldest and most respected
film production houses, founded in 1969 by the late Gulshan Rai and
presently managed by his son Mr.Rajiv Rai. The plaintiff is the producer of
several iconic films including Tridev, Vishwatma, Mohra, Deewar and
Gupt.
3. Plaintiff claims that the present suit concerns the plaintiff’s copyright
in the song titled ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ forming part of the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ . The plaintiff claims to be the first owner of the copyright in the
said song, including (i) the underlying literary work (lyrics by Anand
Bakshi), (ii) the underlying musical work (composition by Kalyanji-
Anandji) and (iii) the sound recording, all of which vest in the plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff claims that by an agreement dated 30.06.1988, the plaintiff
assigned limited rights to defendant no.3 i.e. Super Cassettes Industries
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 2 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

Private Limited, confined to record-based exploitation, namely the
manufacture and sale of cassettes and gramophone records. It further
claims that the said agreement does not assign or contemplate any right to
synchronise or incorporate the said song, whether in its original or remixed
form, in any cinematograph film other than ‘ Tridev’ .
5. Plaintiff claims that in or around the fourth week of March 2026, the

plaintiff discovered that the defendants had created a remixed version of
the said song titled ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’ and incorporated both the
remixed version and the original sound recording of the said song in a new
cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ , released on or about
19.03.2026.
6. In view of the above, the plaintiff seeks an ad-interim injunction
against the defendants to the extent as prayed for in the application, which
is extracted hereunder:
“35. The Plaintiff, therefore, prays that:-

a. An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants, directly or
indirectly, by themselves, their concerns, firms, partners, servants,
employees, agents, distributors and all persons claiming under them by
a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any
manner whatsoever infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in the said
Song viz Tirchi Topiwale or any underlying works comprised therein
including in particular the lyrics thereof and the tune / musical work
thereof or any part thereof, whether in its original form or as a remixed
version, by using, reproducing, incorporating, adapting, translating,
communicating to the public or otherwise exploiting the same in any
cinematograph film including in particular in the film Dhurandhar The
Revenge, or through any other medium or platform whatsoever except
the form of exploitation permitted under clause 2 of the said
Agreement;

b. An order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants, directly or
indirectly, by themselves, their concerns, firms, partners, servants,
employees, agents, distributors and all persons claiming under them by
a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 3 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

manner whatsoever exploiting, exhibiting or communicating to the
public or broadcasting or causing to be exploited, exhibited, adapted,
translated, or communicated to the public or broadcasted, the
Impugned Film Dhurandhar The Revenge or any other cinematograph
film to the extent that it comprises the said Song viz Tirchi Topiwale
and the underlying works therein such as the lyrics and the tune or any
other song from the Said Work Tridev or any underlying work thereof
(i.e. the lyrics or tune or performance thereof) and from doing or
continuing to do any of the above acts through any physical or non-
physical medium including without limitation in cinema halls, the
internet, satellites, DVDs, blue ray discs, removable or embedded
drives, ring tones, MP3 CDs, CDs, caller tunes, broadcast and
streaming platforms, or any soft / digital method of disseminating the
said infringing material either on visual medium or an audio medium;

c. An order of interim injunction directing the Defendants, directly or
indirectly, by themselves, their concerns, firms, partners, servants,
employees, agents, distributors and all persons claiming under them to
forthwith take down and remove the Impugned Song and the original
sound recording of the said Song viz Tirchi Topiwale from all platforms
and media on which they are made available, including online
streaming platforms, digital platforms and any other mode of
communication to the public, and to remove the same from the film
Dhurandhar The Revenge in its entirety;

d. An order of interim injunction directing the Defendants to make full
and complete disclosure of all information and documents in relation to
the Impugned Song, including inter alia: (a) the details of all platforms,
media and territories in which the Impugned Film Dhurandhar The
Revenge and/or the Impugned Song has been exhibited, distributed or
communicated to the public; (b) the revenues and profits earned by the
Defendants from the exploitation of the Impugned Song in the
Impugned Film Dhurandhar The Revenge across all platforms and
media; and (c) the details of all agreements, licences or arrangements
entered into by the Defendants in relation to the Impugned Song, and
pending and upon such disclosure, the Defendants be restrained from
disposing of or dealing with the proceeds of exploitation of the
Impugned Film Dhurandhar The Revenge and/or the Impugned Song in
any manner that may adversely affect the Plaintiff's ability to recover
damages or other pecuniary relief as this Hon'ble Court may award;

e. An order for rendition of accounts for all royalties due and payable
under the said Agreement in respect of the exploitation of the said Song
viz Tirchi Topiwale, together with interest thereon at such rate and for
such period as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 4 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

f. pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, ad-
interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) above be granted;

g. this Hon’ble Court may pass any order as it deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may require.”

CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:

7. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the
plaintiff and contends as under:
7.1 Giving a brief background to the subject matter of the dispute,
learned senior counsel would submit that the plaintiff entered
into an assignment agreement dated 30.06.1988 (hereinafter
referred to as “the agreement” ) with the defendant no.3.
According to her, the plaintiff had granted the defendant no.3
rights which are prescribed in para 2 of the agreement. She
would contend that a reading of all the clauses of para 2 of the
said agreement clearly disclose that the rights, title and interest
in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the
cinematograph film were assigned to the defendant no.3;
however, the same were for the limited purpose of making
records, adaptation and broadcasting the said work and any
such adaptation by means of records. She contended that the
entire agreement was only for the purposes of creation of
records of the aforesaid three works, for which the defendant
no.3 was to pay royalty to the plaintiff at the rates prescribed
in para 5 of the agreement. She states that no separate right in
respect of the cinematograph film was ever assigned to
defendant no.3.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 5 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

7.2 In order to buttress the aforesaid arguments, learned senior
counsel referred to para 7 of the agreement to submit that the
adaptation granted to the defendant no.3 was only to the extent
of adding to, taking from and altering the rights granted for the
purposes of reproduction in the form of records and that
defendant no.3 was also entitled to combine the said work with
any other work.
7.3 In order to explain the words employed in the agreement, Ms.
Sukumar, learned senior counsel, drew attention to para 1
thereof to submit that the words specified in clause (a) of para
1 were required to have the meaning assigned to them by the
provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. That apart, she heavily
relied on clause (b) of para 1 to state that the word ‘Record’
clearly explains that it would include a disk, tape, perforated
roll and all other devices in which sounds were embodied for
reproduction by the means specified therein, other than a
sound track associated with the cinematograph film. In other
words, she asserted that the plaintiff retained the rights as an
owner, being the Producer of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’.
According to her, the defendant no.3 was merely to reproduce
the records of the songs embodied in the cinematograph film
in form of music cassettes and gramophone records,
communicate them to the public, or offer the same for sale and
pay the plaintiff a royalty as fixed in para 5 of the agreement.
7.4 The learned senior counsel vehemently contended that the
agreement clearly draws a distinction between what it
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 6 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

contemplated as the ‘said work’ on one hand and ‘record’ on
the other. She would contend that para 2 of the agreement,
whereby assignment was conferred, granted the right, title and
interest in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied
in the said work only for publication, sound broadcasting,
public performance and mechanical reproduction and
recording of the said work. According to her, this assignment
did not grant any permission to the defendant no.3 to use the
rights conferred in para 2 of the agreement for the purposes of
embodying those in a cinematograph film. As to what
constitutes the said work, Ms. Sukumar, learned senior
counsel, drew attention to the first page of the agreement,
where it was clearly specified that the Producer i.e. the
plaintiff, was the sole author and absolute owner of the
copyrights in the said work, which included literary, dramatic,
musical, record and cinematograph film copyrights in the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ . She would assert that these
rights, barring the rights specified in para 2 of the agreement
are still retained by the plaintiff.
7.5 She would also assert that the rights of the plaintiff are
tethered to the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ , which is evident
from the fact that the agreement contemplates royalty on a
percentage basis and is not an outright sale. While referring to
para 2 of the agreement, she would contend that a newer
version of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ itself was not
contemplated. However, the use of the song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 7 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

used twice in the infringing film in the form of a new song
titled ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’ , adds value to the infringing
cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ , which is
being exploited by the defendant no.3 through various
platforms like Jio, Saavn, Gaana and Spotify to name a few.
She also submits that the song titled ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’ ,
which is a remix version of the original song ‘Tirchi
Topiwale’ , has been used in the film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ at the end, alongwith the credits. She would also
submit that the defendants do acknowledge the lyricist
Mr.Anand Bakshi and the music composer Kalyanji-Anandji
of the original cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ . She would
contend that while the defendants acknowledge the lyricist as
also the music composer of the said song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ ,
the same could not have been incorporated into a
cinematograph film without specific permission from the
plaintiff. That having been done, the plaintiff is entitled to an
injunction of the said song being used in the film
‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ .
7.6 Predicated upon the aforesaid arguments, Ms. Sukumar,
learned senior counsel, referred to various reliefs i.e. interim
reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the instant application. She
would contend that though the cinematograph film
‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ has already been released in
movie theaters across India, since the defendants are
contemplating release of the said infringing cinematograph
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 8 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ on an OTT platform, this
Court may consider granting an injunction from the streaming
of the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ on the
OTT platform to the extent that it comprises the song ‘Tirchi
Topiwale’ .
7.7 Learned senior counsel would contend that the relevant
paragraphs in the agreement dated 30.06.1988, may be taken
as having been considered and interpreted by the Division
Bench of Bombay High Court in Shemaroo Entertainment
Ltd. vs. Amrit Sharma & Ors.:2012 SCC OnLine Del 3772 , in
which an agreement had been executed between the parties to
the said suit containing terms which are pari materia to the
agreement dated 30.06.1988. She would contend that having
regard to the interpretation arrived at by the Bombay High
Court, this Court can consider and adapt the reasons rendered
therein and apply to the facts of the present case. The
Shemaroo judgement was resolved in favour of the plaintiff
therein, but for the fact that the plaintiff therein approached the
Court at the eleventh hour, the Division Bench was convinced
that a clear case for injunction was made out. However, on
account of delay of 5 months in approaching the Court, the
Court denied the interim relief of release of the movie
‘Tamanchay’ and alternatively directed deposit of Rs.25 lakhs
against the defendant. In the present case, according to her, the
plaintiff approached the Court well before the proposed date of
release of the cinematograph film ‘Durandhar: The Revenge’
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 9 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

on OTT platform. Thus, according to her, the plaintiff is
entitled to an ad-interim injunction at the stage against the
release of cinematograph film ‘ Durandhar: The Revenge’ on
OTT platform.
7.8 It was argued that whenever the rights of the plaintiff are
infringed by exploitation of the original song ‘Tirchy
Topiwale’ , or the remixed version, on any of the digital music
platforms, it would give a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff
to institute a suit.
7.9 Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following
judgements of the Supreme Court and various High Court:
a. Manmohan Nanda v. United India Assurance Co.
Ltd.: (2022) 4 SCC 582
b. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Haryana Telecom
Limited & Anr.: 2010 (116) DRJ 597
c. Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge
on behalf of the Chancellor, Masters & School vs.
B.D. Bhandari & Anr.: 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3215
d. Deen Dayal Anand Kumar Saraf vs. Paras Agarwal:
2024 SCC OnLine Del 6299
e. M/s Power Control Appliances & Ors. vs. Sumeet
Machines Pvt. Ltd: (1994) 2 SCC 448
f. Bengal Waterproof Limited vs. Bombay Waterproof
Manufacturing Company & Anr: (1997) 1 SCC 99
g. Dashrath B. Rathod & Ors. vs. Fox Star Studios India
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors; 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 345
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 10 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

h. Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia; 2004 3 SCC 90
i. Saregama India Limited v. Balaji Motion; 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 10036
j. Bodhisattva Charitable Trust & Ors. vs. Mayo
Foundation For Medical Education & Research,
FAO(OS)(COMM)73/2024 Order dated 28.07.2025
k. M/s MRT Music vs. Paramvah Studios Private Limited
& Ors; 2026:DHC:2630, CS(COMM) 680/2024 dated
28.03.2026
l. Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise,
A.P; (2006) 11 SCC 573
CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT NO.3
8. Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel appears for the defendant
no.3 and vehemently refutes the submissions made on behalf of the
plaintiff and contends as under:
8.1 At the outset, learned senior counsel would contend that the
present suit is hit by acquiescence, concealment, suppression
and willful non disclosure of relevant facts, which would
disentitle the plaintiff from seeking any discretionary relief
from this Court. He invited attention to the plaint instituted by
the plaintiff, particularly paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 to submit
that the disclosure made in the said paragraphs is not only
incomplete but also contains statements which are false and
tantamount to deceit.
8.2 He would contend that in para 23 of the plaint, the plaintiff has
purportedly made an innocent and passing reference to a
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 11 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

cinematograph film titled ‘Azhar’ without disclosing why
knowledge of the said film was relevant to the suit. In order to
expose the falsity and deceit on the part of the plaintiff, Mr.
Sibal, learned senior counsel had handed over to the Bench
certain documents in the nature of a notice dated 26.04.2016,
stated to have been issued by the plaintiff or under its
instructions to three entities, namely Balaji Motion Pictures
Pvt. Ltd., Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. and DJ
Chetas, alleging infringement by the said three entities of the
copyrighted songs ‘Gali Gali Mein Phirta Hai’ and ‘ Gajar Ne
Kiya Hai Ishara’ in the motion picture ‘Azhar’ , over which the
plaintiff claims copyrights. It was also pointed out that the said
notice was issued by one Mr. Amey Nargolkar on behalf of a
law firm named ‘Vox Law’. Learned senior counsel would
submit that another document, namely a notice dated
02.05.2016, demonstrated that the defendant no.3, having been
approached by the aforesaid three entities, issued the said reply
in response to the notice dated 26.04.2016 in respect of the
aforesaid two songs, to the plaintiff, asserting its rights by
reference to the agreement dated 30.06.1988. He submitted
that vide the said notice, defendant no.3 not only refuted and
challenged the plaintiff’s assertion of ownership of copyrights
but also asserted its own rights as the exclusive holder of rights
under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. In fact, the
plaintiff was directed to unconditionally withdraw the said
notice. Learned senior counsel would submit that no reply was
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 12 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

ever received by defendant no.3 or its counsel from the
plaintiff in response to the reply dated 02.05.2016 issued by
the defendant no.3, till date.
8.3 On subsequent dates of hearing, Mr. Sibal, learned senior
counsel, also handed over a compilation of documents which
not only included the aforesaid notices but also documentary
proof of service of the reply dated 02.05.2016 upon the law
firm ‘Vox Law’ on 05.05.2016. In the said compilation, the
defendant no.3 had also filed a number of orders passed by the
ITAT, Mumbai, as also the judgments and other orders passed
by the Bombay High Court in various litigations instituted on
behalf of the plaintiff between the years 2016 to 2020. These
orders were placed on record by defendant no.3 to establish
two aspects: (i) that the plaintiff, in contradistinction to its
statement in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the plaint that promoter
of the plaintiff i.e., Mr. Rajiv Rai had left India in 1997 and
was therefore, not in a position to monitor the misuse of the
infringing song, is patently false and (ii) the statement that
only upon the return of the promoter to India in the years
2018-19, lawsuits were instituted to protect the copyrights,
was also a false statement. He would contend that this bogey
was raised by the plaintiff to deflect any aspersion as to his
innocence of non disclosure or suppression of material facts.
8.4 Referring to the documents and the orders placed on record by
defendant no.3, learned senior counsel would vehemently
contend that the plaintiff was not only pursuing remedies
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 13 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

available to it in law in respect of purported
violations/infringement of songs etc., in other cinematograph
films during the relevant period from 2016 to 2020, but also
that it was the very same counsel, Mr. Amey Nargolkar, who
had been appearing throughout most of the litigations during
the said period. Plaintiff had also feigned ignorance of the
knowledge of the status of Mr.Amey Nargolkar from the year
2020, when the law firm VoxLaw is stated to have closed
operations. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel, in fact, would
refer to a screenshot of the official trailer of the cinematograph
film ‘Zora’, produced by the plaintiff and released in the year
2025, available on the YouTube channel, wherein, under the
heading ‘Legal’ in the credits section, the name of Mr. Amey
Nargolkar is clearly specified. According to him, this
disclosure which was suppressed by the plaintiff is relevant
since the plaintiff had feigned ignorance to the issuance of the
notice dated 26.04.2016 on behalf of Trimurti films by the law
firm ‘Vox Law’ and had also claimed no knowledge of having
received the reply notice dated 02.05.2016 issued by defendant
no.3. In other words, Mr. Sibal would contend that the plaintiff
was fully aware of his rights and had been pursuing all legal
remedies available to him in the Courts of Law in respect of
purported infringements of the copyrights of Trimurti Films
from the years 2016 to 2020, while simultaneously, did not
take any action whatsoever when the cinematograph film
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 14 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

‘Azhar’ was released on any time subsequent thereto after the
notice dated 26.04.2016 and the reply dated 02.05.2016.
8.5 Another astounding fact, highly material to the discretionary
relief sought by the plaintiff and which too would tantamount
to suppression and willful concealment is the fact that a song
‘Gali Gali’ from the same cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ was
used by the defendant no.3 to be incorporated and exploited in
another cinematograph film called ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ which
was released all over India in the year 2019. He would contend
that, insofar as this cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ is concerned, the plaintiff did not even issue a notice
and has remained silent throughout until today. His contention
is that whether the plaintiff initiated any action in respect of
the cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ or ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ , is not
less significant than the failure to disclose the material fact that
the said cinematograph films containing one or more songs
from the same cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ , were already
exploited and incorporated in two cinematograph films
previously. According to him, such conduct would tantamount
to suppression, willful non-disclosure and deliberate
concealment of material facts, which, if disclosed, would
adversely impact the interests of the plaintiff and would also
disentitle the plaintiff from any discretionary relief from this
Court.
8.6 Learned senior counsel also contended that, apart from the
aforesaid material concealment and suppression, the plaintiff
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 15 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

had very conveniently asserted in the plaint that no royalty
whatsoever was received by the plaintiff pursuant to the
execution of the agreement dated 30.06.1988. He stated that
this contention itself is ex-facie false. In support thereof,
learned senior counsel placed on record a document executed
on 30.06.1988, contemporaneous to the execution of the
agreement, which is an acknowledgement of receipt of
Rs.7,000/- in advance as a signing amount, which also refers to
a future payment of the balance advance royalty amount of
Rs.88,000/-. He would contend that the said acknowledgement
was signed for and on behalf of Trimurti Films by one Mr.
Gulshan Rai, the original producer of the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ . He also referred to documents placed on record by
the defendant no.3, which are financial statements of the
relevant years, which, according to him, are proof of payments
made to the Trimurti Films towards the royalties payable under
the agreement. By relying on the said document, learned senior
counsel would contend that the suit of the plaintiff is clearly
based on false statements and is replete with non-disclosure of
material facts, which would disentitle the plaintiff from any
discretionary relief whatsoever.
8.7 That apart, he also contended that so far as para 5 of the
agreement regarding royalty is concerned, exploitation of the
songs from the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ has continued
from the time the agreement was executed, till date. He would
state that the plaintiff had been exploiting the same through
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 16 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

cassettes and gramophone records. It is just that in the digital
era, the said songs are being openly exploited by the defendant
no.3 on various digital music platforms. Learned senior
counsel, however, stated that in the rejoinder, the plaintiff has
now given up the relief seeking injunction against audio
streaming of the song which forms the subject matter of the
present suit.
8.8 Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel, drew attention to the prayer
clause of the plaint to state that, under the garb of the
impugned cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ ,
the plaintiff is seeking injunction, permanent as also
mandatory against the defendants in respect of any other
cinematographic film or any other song from the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ being exploited or incorporated in
any cinematograph film, which is impermissible in law. He
would contend that what was never challenged by the plaintiff
in the years 2016 and 2019, when other songs pertaining to the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ were exploited by the defendant
no.3, cannot now be made the subject matter of the present
suit. He would also contend that it is a clever drafting where
those causes of action which do not survive today are sought to
be resurrected, albeit surreptitiously.
8.9 Learned senior counsel then referred to the rejoinder filed by
the plaintiff to the reply of defendant no.3, particularly to para
4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 19, to submit that the plaintiff has now
taken a complete 360 degree turn with respect to the disclosure
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 17 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

regarding the cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ ; the legal notice
dated 26.04.2016; the alleged non-receipt of defendant no.3’s
letter dated 02.05.2016 and the explanation that the
concealment alleged by defendant no.3 is illusory.
8.10 Referring next to the arguments of the plaintiff based on the
agreement executed between the parties, learned senior
counsel submitted that it was never the case of defendant no.3
that the agreement dated 30.06.1988 was an act of
relinquishment by the plaintiff, rather, it was a simple
assignment of all the rights of the Producer i.e. the plaintiff,
unto the defendant no.3 by virtue of para 2 of the said
agreement. He would contend that defendant no.3 never
asserted its rights over the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ itself,
but only over the literary, dramatic and musical work
embodied therein. He further argued that by virtue of para 8 of
the agreement, defendant no.3 became the owner of the
Original Plate of the said work and was to be construed as the
Author of the said records.
8.11 Referring to what constituted the “said work” under the
agreement, learned senior counsel invited attention to para 2 of
the agreement, particularly clauses (i) and (xi), to submit that
the plaintiff had surrendered all rights, title and interest in the
literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the “said
work”, including the rights to publication, sound broadcasting,
public performance and mechanical reproduction and
recording of the said work. This coupled with the right to
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 18 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

make or even authorize the making of any versions of the said
work and of the musical, literary and dramatic works
embodied therein, the plaintiff unequivocally conveyed to the
defendant no.3 by virtue of the said agreement, all the rights
embodied in the agreement except for the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ .
8.12 Learned senior counsel thereafter referred to various
provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, as was then in force in
the year 1988, to submit that Section 14 as it then stood,
conferred copyright in case of literary, dramatic or musical
work to do or authorize the making of any cinematograph film
or record in respect of the work. He would contend that para 2
of the agreement made it explicitly clear what constituted the
‘said work’. As such, according to him, the defendant no.3, is
entitled to even the rights over the cinematograph film,
however, has not exercised any rights till date on such
copyrights. He pointed out that as per sub clause (vii) of
Clause (a) to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act,
defendant no.3 was entitled to make any adaptation of the
work. He correlated the said statutory right with the right
conferred on defendant no.3 by virtue of para 7 of the
agreement dated 30.06.1988. To the same effect, he referred to
Clauses (c) and (d) of sub-Section 1 of Section 14 of the said
Act. In this context, learned senior counsel also referred to
para 12 of the agreement to submit that the rights and
obligations under the assignment were to apply to all songs,
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 19 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

dialogues and sequences. Meaning thereby, that the
assignment was complete by its very nature in favour of the
defendant no.3 and all that was retained, if at all, by the
plaintiff was in respect of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’
alone. According to Mr.Sibal, the terms of the said agreement
were more expansive than the meanings provided in the
definition clause of the Copyright Act, 1957. He relies upon
the following judgments:
a. Trimurti Films v Dharma Productions Order dated
December 23, 2025 in I.A. (L) No. 41013 of 2025 in
Comm IP Suit No. 717 of 2025 before Bombay
High Court.
b. Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. Amrit Sharma &
Ors. : 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3772
c. Dashrath B. Rathod & Ors. v. Fox Star Studios
India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. : 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 345
d. Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama v. Ashutosh

Gowarikar & Ors. : 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5207
e. Narendra Mohan Singh alias Mr. Sanjay Singh &
Anr. v. Ketan Mehta & Ors. : 2015 SCC OnLine
Bom 876
f. Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sona BLW
Precision Forgings Ltd. & Ors. : 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 2184
g. Marico Limited v. Dabur India Limited : 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 3530
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 20 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

h. Oswal Fats & Oils Limited v. Additional
Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division,
Bareilly & Ors. : (2010) 4 SCC 728
i. ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. : 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8667
j. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. & Anr. v.
Harinder Kohli & Ors. : 2008 SCC OnLine Del
1081
k. Vendhar Movies v. S. Mukundchand Bothra : 2017
SCC OnLine Mad 13577
l. Radha Bharadwaj v. Ellipsis Entertainment Media
LLP & Ors. : 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13139
m. Rahul Mawai v. Union of India & Ors. [Order
dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) 17440/2024 before
Delhi High Court]
n. M/s Power Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet
Machines Pvt. Ltd. : (1994) 2 SCC 448
o. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v.
Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana : (2024) 2 SCC 577
p. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of
Gujarat & Anr. : (1975) 1 SCC 199
q. Rupali P. Shah v. Adani Wilmer Limited & Ors. :
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2540
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 21 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

r. H.R. Basavaraj (Dead) By His LRs. and Anr v.
Canara Bank and Ors. : 2009 SCC OnLine SC
1747
s. KSL & Industries Ltd. v. National Textiles
Corporation Ltd. : 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4189
:
CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT NO.2
9. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
defendant no.2/JIO Studios and stated that the defendant no.2 would adopt
the arguments addressed on behalf of defendant no.3 in toto. In addition,
learned senior counsel addressed the following arguments:
9.1 At the outset, Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel would contend
that the prayer sought by the plaintiff in its stay application
and the grant thereof would result in an incongruity in law. In
that, he argued that, on the one hand, the song which is subject
matter of the present suit would be permitted to continue to
play in the credit section of the cinematograph film
‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ in cinema halls, while, on the
other hand, the said song would be restrained from being
played in the background in the credit section, while being
released on OTT platforms. He would contend that this would
result in an incongruity which cannot be reconciled. He stoutly
contended it is inconceivable that what would amount to an
infringement on an OTT platform would not constitute as
violation or infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in cinema
halls/movie theaters.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 22 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

9.2 He would further contend that despite the notice dated
02.05.2016 issued by defendant no.3 to the plaintiff and the
use of two songs from the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ in the
cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ and subsequently the use of one
song in the cinematograph film ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’, the
plaintiff never took any legal action against the defendant no.3
or any of the producers of the cinematograph films ‘Azhar’
and ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’. He asserted that the lack of pursuit of
legal remedies by the plaintiff effectively gave assurance to
defendant no.3 to proceed further and confer rights upon
defendant no.2 to commence and complete the production of
the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ .
9.3 Learned senior counsel referred to para 2(i) and 2(xi) of the
agreement to contend that the provisions of these paragraphs
are not conditioned by the words “Record”, unlike other sub-
clauses of para 2 and therefore, give the semblance of rights in
the musical, dramatic and literary works in the cinematograph
film to the defendant no.3.
9.4 Learned senior counsel referred to paras 16, 17 and 18 of the

judgment of this Court in Deendayal (supra) to submit that,
when a Court is considering an application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, it is necessary that the party
seeking such relief comes to the Court with clean hands and
not conceal any material facts. He would contend that the
learned Division Bench had clearly held that the non-
disclosures adverse to the case of the party would warrant
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 23 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

denial of discretionary relief. Simultaneously, the Court must
also assess whether the said facts have been suppressed
deliberately. Predicated thereon, he would contend that, if both
the factors as noted above by the learned Division Bench of
this Court are applied to the facts of this case, the plaintiff
would be disentitled to any discretionary relief from this
Court.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 :
10. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
defendant no.1 stated that he would adopt the arguments of Mr. Akhil Sibal
and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant
nos.3 and 2 respectively. Additionally,
10.1 Learned senior counsel by inviting attention of this Court to
prayer clause (g) of para 47 of the plaint contended that the
plaintiff is only seeking monetary damages, which can easily
be ascertained during trial and would not require any restraint
of release of the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ on OTT platform. He would contend that, in any
case, once the cinematograph film had already been released in
theaters on 19.03.2026, no prejudice of any nature would be
caused to the plaintiff for the reason that, in case the plaintiff is
able to establish any rights whatsoever, as alleged in the plaint,
the plaintiff can be suitably compensated in monetary terms.
10.2 He would contend that, where a party can be compensated
with adequate damages, discretionary relief ought not to be
granted. He relied upon the judgement of this Court in John
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 24 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

Hart Jr. v. Mukul Deora : 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3499 to
support his contentions.
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
11. In rejoinder Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned senior counsel would
contend as under:
11.1 Referring to the agreement dated 30.06.1988, Ms. Sukumar,

learned senior counsel would submit that the only manner in
which an author or original copyright holder is divested of his
rights, is provided in Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It
is stated the said section provides that the author can relinquish
all or any of his rights comprised in the copyright by giving a
notice in the prescribed form to the Registrar of Copyrights.
She stated that it is only thereafter that the rights would cease
from the date of the notice. In fact, she would contend that it is
only upon the receipt of the notice that the Registrar of the
Copyrights would cause it to be published in the official
gazette and only then do the rights cease to exist.
11.2 She would contend that no such notice was ever issued by the
plaintiff meaning thereby the plaintiff retained all rights as
were available to him under the agreement dated 30.06.1988
and the argument to the contrary advanced by the defendants
should not be accepted. She stated that inaction on the part of
the plaintiff in pursuing any remedy after having issued notice
dated 26.04.2016, or even after the release of cinematograph
films ‘Azhar’ or ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’, cannot non-suit the
plaintiff from claiming the reliefs sought in the present suit
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 25 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

based on the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. She relies on
the judgment of Syndicate of Press (supra) , in paras 44 and 50
and Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (supra) , in para 22, in support
of her contention.
11.3 She reiterated her contentions in the opening arguments and

referred to various paragraphs in the agreement dated
30.06.1988 to contend that, when read cumulatively and
harmoniously, the provisions thereunder do not give any right
to the defendant no.3 other than the right of dissemination and
communication of what is constituted as records in the
agreement.
11.4 Learned senior counsel referred to the reply filed on behalf of
defendant no.3 to the stay application, particularly paras 61
and 62, to be read in conjunction with the documents placed
on record by defendant no.3, which are stated to be
correspondences exchanged between the plaintiff and
defendant no.3 during the year 1989. While referring to those
documents, Ms. Sukumar, learned senior counsel forcefully
contended that the said documents clearly demonstrate and
reveal the real intention of the parties while executing the
agreement dated 30.06.1988. She emphasised that most of the
documents, which are correspondences emanating from the
defendant no.3, the defendant no.3 has referred to the songs in
the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ as “Your Songs”. She would
contend that, in case the plaintiff had surrendered or assigned
all rights to the defendant no.3 under the said agreement, there
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 26 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

was no question or any statutory requirement for defendant
no.3 to either seek any permission from or inform the plaintiff
before such songs were broadcasted. In other words, she would
contend that the assignment was limited only to creation of
records of the songs and the exploitation thereof by defendant
no.3, subject to payment of royalty to the plaintiff. According
to her, the plaintiff retained all rights over the cinematograph
film ‘Tridev’ and the underlying works embodied in the songs
contained in the said film.
11.5 In response to the contention of defendant no.3 that the
agreement dated 30.06.1988 subsequently culminated into a
lumpsum payment agreement whereby all rights, title and
interest in the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ were assigned by
the plaintiff to defendant no.3, learned senior counsel would
contend that there is no proof, either documentary or oral, to
substantiate or corroborate the said argument. She contended
that so far as certain documents purported to be statements of
account claiming to reveal payments of royalty made to the
plaintiff are concerned, the same are merely self-serving
statements of the defendant no.3, unsupported by any
corresponding receipts of money having been received by the
plaintiff. In the absence whereof, she would contend that the
obligation of defendant no.3 to pay royalty was never
discharged by the defendant no.3. So much so that, according
to her, even the purported receipt dated 30.06.1988 claiming
payment of Rs.7000/- as advance to the plaintiff, appears to be
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 27 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

a doubtful document and as such no reliance can possibly be
placed on the same.
11.6 Handing over a compilation of documents consisting of
screenshots of the closing credits of the cinematograph film
‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ , Ms. Sukumar, learned senior
counsel, contended that the original song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’
was played in the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ alongwith the remixed version which appeared in the
credit section of the said film. She would contend that the use
of the original song and the remixed version in the said
cinematograph film clearly constitutes an infringement of the
copyright of the plaintiff as the Producer of the cinematograph
film ‘Tridev’ , inasmuch as no permission or license was
obtained by defendant no.3 from the plaintiff before using the
said song in the said film. She further stated that the remixed
version of the said song is available on multiple e-music
platforms such as YouTube, YouTube music, Apple music
etc., where defendant no.3 and the other defendants are
exploiting the same and generating huge revenue, without
payment of any royalties whatsoever to the plaintiff.
11.7 She also referred to an agreement dated 20.06.1989 executed
between the plaintiff, as assignor, and defendant no.3 as the
assignee for the purposes of assignment of video copyrights
relating to the transferring, processing, recording, duplicating,
copying, and taping the film ‘Tridev’ onto the videograms,
cassettes, discs and tapes. She would contend that the
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 28 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

assignment was for a consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- in the
year 1989. Based on the said agreement, she would contend
that, in case the version advanced by the defendant no.3 is
taken to be gospel truth, there would have been no requirement
for the plaintiff to execute the agreement dated 20.06.1989 i.e.,
almost one year after the agreement dated 30.06.1988, which,
according to the defendant no.3, had already conveyed all
rights title and interest in the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ .
Even the agreement dated 20.06.1989 assigned only the video
copyright of the plaintiff to defendant no.3 for the purpose of
further exploitation and not the rights of the plaintiff in the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ or in the musical, literary or
dramatic works embodied in the songs thereof.
11.8 She would contend that there is no statutory acquiescence
under the Copyright Act, 1957, and therefore, mere silence or
inaction on the part of the plaintiff on previous occasions
would not, ipso facto , amount to an admission of acquiescence
by the plaintiff.
11.9 She would further contend on the question that in case the

agreement is construed as ambiguous, the ambiguity must be
resolved in favour of the plaintiff since the agreement dated
30.06.1988 was drafted by the defendant no.3 as a dominating
party and the doctrine of “contra proferentem” has to be
resolved in favour of the plaintiff. She relies on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Manmohan Nanda (supra) ,
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 29 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

particularly para 45 thereof, as well as the judgment of this
Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) .
11.10 With regard to the alleged varying stands taken by the
plaintiff in the plaint, thereafter in the rejoinder to the reply
filed by defendant no.3 to the stay application, as also the
affidavits of Mr. Rajiv Rai and Mr. Umesh Mehta, learned
senior counsel would contend that this Court may adopt a
sympathetic or a lenient view, as the non-disclosures coupled
with the varying instances were neither intentional nor
deliberate, nor were they intended to obstruct the
administration of justice by this Court in any manner
whatsoever. She would contend that the suppression, if any,
would not confer any advantage or benefit upon the plaintiff
and as such, the error may be condoned.
11.11 Lastly, Ms. Sukumar, learned senior counsel would also
contend that the sanctity attached to the licensing regime under
the Copyright Act, 1957, must be upheld by this Court, lest
infringers in the nature of entities like the defendants would
violate or infringe the rights of persons like the plaintiff with
impunity and no one would bother approaching authors etc.,
for licenses or payment of royalty for exploitation of their
musical, literary or dramatic works.
SUR REJOINDER ON BEHALF DEFENDANT NO.3 :
12. In sur-rejoinder, Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for defendant no.3
would submit as under:
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 30 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

12.1 Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel would vehemently contend
that the inaction on the part of the plaintiff in the context of
the cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ in the year 2016, or ‘K.G.F:
Chapter 1’ in the year 2019, was not a mere choice of the
plaintiff in the context of a commercial decision as argued, but
is a conduct which has led defendant no.3 to alter its position
and take commercial and financial decisions based thereon,
which cannot now be permitted to operate to the disadvantage
or detriment of defendant no.3. Learned senior counsel
contended that the complete absence of any legal action on the
part of the plaintiff while defendant no.3 exploited other songs
from the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’, not only for the purpose
of broadcasting the same but also using versions of the songs
in two different cinematograph films, should enure to the
benefit of the defendant no.3. Defendant no.3, in accordance
with the agreement dated 30.06.1988 and by virtue of the
subsequent use of the songs in ‘Azhar’ and ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’
and now ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ , has perfected its rights
to use the said songs in any form whatsoever, including in
remixed version in the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ .
12.2 In response to the argument based on the agreement dated
20.06.1989, he would submit that the said agreement has been
placed on record by defendant no.3 by way of a fair
disclosure, and not by the plaintiff. He would contend that the
said agreement was only for the purposes of display and
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 31 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

distribution of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ separately
through video cassettes, a technology which had recently
developed at that time. He would contend that notwithstanding
the rights and title conferred upon the defendant no.3 by virtue
of agreement dated 30.06.1988, the rights of the plaintiff in the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ were sought to be preserved in
favour of the plaintiff, though there was no requirement to do
so. Thus, according to him, the mere fact that an agreement
dated 20.06.1989 was executed would not imply that the
plaintiff still retained any rights in the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ .
12.3 On the argument based on the doctrine “contra proferentem” ,
learned senior counsel would stoutly contend that it was never
the case of defendant no.3 that there existed any ambiguity in
the terms or conditions specified in agreement dated
30.06.1988. In fact, to the contrary, the defendant no.3
asserted that the terms of the said agreement unequivocally
conferred all rights in the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ upon
defendant no.3. The argument regarding ambiguity, if any,
was raised by the defendant no.3 only in the alternative. As
such, none of the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff in the
context of “contra proferentem” require consideration by this
Court.
12.4 Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of Trimurti
Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Dharma Production Pvt. Ltd. (supra) ,
wherein the Court repelled the contention of the plaintiff
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 32 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

therein that what was assigned to the defendant was only
limited to copyright in sound recordings for the purpose of
making records and nothing more, on the grounds of the
plaintiff having approached the Court belatedly after a period
of 35 years. Similarly, according to learned senior counsel, in
the present case, the plaintiff having approached this Court
after a lapse of 38 years, and that too without any sufficient
explanation or justification, would not persuade this Court to
hold that the agreement dated 30.06.1988 was indeed limited
in its assignment. Thus, he prayed that the present application
be dismissed with exemplary costs.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
13. This Court has heard extensive arguments advanced by Ms. Swathi
Sukumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Mr. Akhil
Sibal, learned senior counsel for defendant no.3, Mr. Sandeep Sethi,
learned senior counsel for defendant no.2 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned
senior counsel for defendant no.1 on 06.05.2026, 08.05.2026 and finally on
11.05.2026 and with their valuable assistance, perused the material on
record and considered the judgments relied upon by the parties.
14. Significantly, while considering an application under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Courts are to be guided by the principles of
triple test i.e., whether there exists a prima facie strong case in favour of
the plaintiff, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
plaintiff and whether irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff
which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms. Apart from
the aforesaid triple test, it is trite that the power of a Court under Order
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 33 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC is discretionary, albeit exercisable on
justifiable grounds (See: Wander Limited vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.: 1990
Supp SCC 727 - para 9). It is also well settled that one who seeks equity
must do equity. In other words, a party seeking discretionary relief has to
approach the Court with clean hands and must not suppress or conceal
material facts which, if revealed or disclosed, would adversely impact the
case of the party or result in denial of any equitable or discretionary relief
to such party.
15. Though the case of the plaintiff is predicated on the covenants in the
agreement dated 30.06.1988, this Court must also examine as to whether
the plaintiff, while seeking such discretionary relief, has disclosed all
relevant and material facts which may entitle or disentitle the plaintiff to
such discretionary reliefs.
16. This Court is fortified in its view by the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench in Kent RO System Limited & Anr. vs. Gattubhai & Ors.: (2022)
SCC OnLine Del 701 , wherein it was held as under:-
“ 23 . Furthermore, a party that approaches the court for a
grant of discretionary relief has to come with clean hands and
disclose all material facts, which would have a bearing on the
merits of the case. It has been held in Wheels India v. S.
Nirmal Singh¹⁰ and Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. v. State
Bank of India¹¹, that the orders granting injunction, which
are obtained on account of deliberate suppression of material
facts, are liable to be vacated on the ground of suppression
and concealment alone. The observations of this Court in
Wheels India case¹⁰ are set out below:
“18. The plaintiff, therefore, has disentitled itself
to the equitable relief of injunction on account of
deliberate suppression of material facts in the
plaint as well as suppression of documentary
evidence from the scrutiny of this Court.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 34 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

Concealment of material facts or documents
deserves to be seriously viewed, for one who
comes to the court owes a duty to the court to
disclose all facts and documents to the court. The
contention of the plaintiff in the instant case that it
had disclosed in the plaint that it was purchasing
goods from the defendants is neither here nor
there. The plaintiff deliberately and intentionally,
in my view, hid from the court the fact that
Defendant 2, M/s Prince Auto Industries had been
dealing with the same goods, viz. wheel covers and
auto accessories and had made a mark in its field
of activity well before the plaintiff got registered
the trade mark 'Prince'. The plaintiff also hid from
the court the exact relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendants and that there were
written agreements to ensure the smooth working
of the said relationship duly executed by the
parties and registered with the statutory
authorities. The reason for suppression of such
material facts is clearly discernible. Had the
plaintiff stated in the plaint that Defendant 2 had
been in the same field of activity from the year
1998 under the trade name 'Prince Automobile
Industries' and had the plaintiff further stated in
the plaint that it had been working as the
authorised stockiest of the plaintiff from the year
2001 to the 15-9-2004, the plaintiff, in my view,
may not have succeeded in obtaining an ex parte
ad interim injunction from this Court, which is
enduring to the benefit of the plaintiff till date,
though with some modification."”
[Emphasis supplied]
17. The case of the plaintiff was predicated on the agreement dated
30.06.1988, upon which great emphasis was laid by Ms. Sukumar, learned
senior counsel. It was contended that the covenants, if read cumulatively
and harmoniously, would clearly indicate that the only rights conferred or
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 35 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

assigned to defendant no.3 under the said agreement was with respect to the
rights and title over the musical, literary and dramatic works embodied in
the songs of the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ . It was further contended, by
referring to certain documents placed on record by defendant no.3, which
may constitute contemporanea expositio , that the same, when read
conjunctively, would demonstrate that the plaintiff had not assigned any
right other than what was specified in para 2 of the agreement dated
30.06.1988 read with clauses 5 and 7 thereof.
18. It was also contended that the royalty which was stipulated in para 5
of the agreement dated 30.06.1988 was never paid to the plaintiff at any
point in time. With respect to the previous exploitations by defendant no.3
in the cinematograph films ‘Azhar’ and ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ , it was
vehemently contended that the inaction on the part of the plaintiff in
approaching a Court of law would not non-suit the plaintiff from
approaching this Court by way of the present suit, inasmuch as every
unauthorized exploitation of the copyright of the plaintiff would constitute
a fresh cause of action. Moreover, it was also contended that such inaction
might only result in financial loss to the plaintiff, which is a commercial
decision, the plaintiff is entitled to take, and surely would not prejudice any
of the defendants. The plaintiff further stressed that the exploitation of the
song ‘Tirchi Topiwale’ in the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The
Revenge’ and the further exploitation of the remixed version of the said
song in digital music platforms without any authorization or license from
the plaintiff, would tantamount to infringement which needs to be
restrained predicated on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
Midas Hygiene Industries (supra) .
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 36 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

19. On facts, it is significant to note that the promoter of the plaintiff i.e.,
Mr. Rajiv Rai claimed to have left India in the year 1997 on the assertion
that his life was under threat and that he had returned to India only in the
years 2018-19. The plaintiff also asserted in the suit, that during the
interregnum, he was not in touch with the affairs of the industry and
therefore, had no knowledge of any misuse or exploitation of any works
over which the plaintiff had copyrights. It is also significant to note that the
plaintiff in para 23 of the plaint, made a passing reference to the
cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ stating that the plaintiff was aware that the said
song has been used in that film. In para 24, the promoter of the plaintiff
claimed that he was unable to monitor all uses of the said song on account
of not being in India. Plaintiff further asserted that it was only when the
plaintiff’s promoter returned to India in the year 2018-19 that the plaintiff
actively resumed protection and enforcement of its rights in its films and
the underlying works comprising therein. The plaintiff also disclosed in
para 26 of the plaint that it had successfully prosecuted a suit before the
Bombay High Court against defendant no.3 and others in relation to certain
songs in another film produced by the plaintiff, on similar grounds and
under similar circumstances which was decided in its favour.
20. As against this, the defendant no.3 placed on record certain crucial

and essential material documents, which appear to have, in the opinion of
this Court, significant impact on the version rendered by the plaintiff as
also on its bona fide. The defendant had placed on record, (i) the notice
dated 26.04.2016 issued by the plaintiff through the law firm ‘Vox Law’ by
one counsel, Mr. Amey Nargolker to three entities; (ii) reply notice dated
02.05.2016 issued by defendant no.3 to the plaintiff’s law firm ‘Vox Law’
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 37 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

in response to the notice dated 26.04.2016 on behalf of the said three
entities; (iii) the proof of delivery by way of tracking reports of the speed
post of the Postal Department in proof of delivery of the reply notice dated
02.05.2016; (iv) a number of orders and judgments of the ITAT, Mumbai
Bench and the Bombay High Court in suits and other proceedings instituted
by the plaintiff during the period 2016 to 2020, and; (v) a screenshot of the
official trailer of the cinematograph film ‘Zora’, claimed to have been
produced by the plaintiff/its promoter, wherein in the credit section, the
name of Mr. Amey Nargolkar is reflected under the heading ‘Legal’.
21. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has neither disputed nor
contradicted the aforesaid documents, except to state in the rejoinder that,
(i) with respect to the notice dated 26.04.2016, while there is no reference
to it in the plaint, it is claimed that one Mr. Umesh G. Mehta was the only
person managing the day-to-day affairs of the plaintiff in India and who
caused such notice to be sent upon telephonic instructions of Mr.Rajiv Rai
and that so far as the reply notice dated 02.05.2016 is concerned, the
plaintiff feigns ignorance on the ground that the same was claimed to have
not been transmitted to the promoter - Mr. Rajiv Rai; (ii) with respect to the
counsel, Mr. Amey Nargolker, the plaintiff took a stand in the rejoinder
that to the best of his knowledge, the law firm ‘Vox Law’ had closed its
operations in the year 2020 and that he had no records pertaining either to
the notices or to Mr. Nargolker thereafter; however, the records reveal that
not only were the notices served upon the firm ‘VoxLaw’ but also that Mr.
Nargolker remained in touch with the plaintiff as late as the year 2025; and
(iii) though the plaintiff asserted in the plaint that, on account of having
migrated to the United Kingdom in the year 1997, the promoter of the
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 38 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

plaintiff had lost all touch with the industry and was unable to monitor any
infringement of his copyrights or exploitation of his rights until the years
2018-19, however, the documents, particularly the orders and judgments in
various legal proceedings instituted by the plaintiff in respect of certain
cinematograph films and the copyrights subsisting thereunder for similar or
identical allegations of infringement, demonstrate that the plaintiff was
diligently and seriously filing lawsuits in various Courts and Tribunals in
India during the relevant period from 2016 onwards at least till the year
2020. It is relevant to note that the legal actions undertaken by the plaintiff
between the years 2016 and 2020 also included one suit filed against the
defendant no.3 and others on similar allegations in respect of a song in
another cinematograph film, where the plaintiff obtained a judgment in its
favour. The said details are extracted hereunder:


S.No Particulars Citation Court/Issuing
Authority
Date
1. Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. v. Income Tax
Office, Mumbai
I.T.A.
No.3018 &
5247/Mum/
2016
Income Tax
Appellate
Tribunal “B”
Bench,
Mumbai
19.12.2017
2. Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. v. Super
Cassettes Industries
Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Comm Suit
(L)
No.459/2017
High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay
22.08.2017
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 39 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

3. Super Cassettes
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.
Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
2017 SCC
OnLine Bom
8999
High Court of
Bombay
28.08.2017
4. Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. v. M/s Eagle
Home Entertainment
Pvt. Ltd.
Comm IP
Suit
No.314/2017
High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay
22.12.2018
5. Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. v. Rohit Shetty
Pictures LLP & Ors.
Comm IP
Suit
No.1015/201
9
High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay
05.03.2020
6. Trimurti Films Pvt.
Ltd. v. Dharma
Production Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors.
Comm IP
Suit
No.717/2025
High Court of
Judicature at
Bombay
23.12.2025

22. What is even more intriguing, apart from the aforesaid non-
disclosures, is the affidavit now filed by the plaintiff attempting to explain
circumstances which were hithertobefore pleaded in the plaint and the
rejoinder, many times in contradiction to each other. It would be apposite
to extract hereunder the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit of not only the
promoter of the plaintiff Mr. Rajiv Rai but also Mr. Umesh G. Mehta
which will clearly demonstrate the extent to which the plaintiff has taken
contradictory stands and at times a complete 360 degree turn. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
Affidavit of Mr.Rajiv Rai dated 11.05.2026:
“2. I state that following an attempt on my life in 1997, I left India
and permanently relocated to the United Kingdom, while also
spending periods of time in the United States of America and
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 40 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

Switzerland. I state that during this time, I was visiting India only for
important matters and I attempted to be abreast with the most
important issues of the Plaintiff company. My former wife and son
initially lived with me abroad and then returned to India and lived in
Pondicherry, and I used to visit them in Pondicherry from 2013-14
onwards, during my trips to India. Even on those trips, I did not
always visit Mumbai as I preferred to spend my time with them.
--XXX--
4. I state that in April 2016, I became aware of unauthorized
exploitation of the songs from the Plaintiff's film Tridev, in relation to
an upcoming film Azhar. Hence, I telephonically instructed Mr.
Umesh G. Mehta, to speak to Mr. Amey Nargolkar from M/s Vox Law,
regarding issuance of a legal notice. Mr. Mehta is a local coordinator
with no independent authority to engage lawyers without my
instructions, as for all intents and purposes my company remained a
family-run company. I was always the person who decided the legal
priorities of the company. However, owing to my pre-occupation with
the settlement proceedings and related pressing legal issues, I was
unable to diligently follow up on or keep track of the developments
regarding the same.
--XXX--
6. I state that I had telephonically communicated with M/s Vox
Law from 2016 till about 2020 on matters that were unavoidable and
pressing. From what I can recall, the law firm had around 50
members at that time, including Mr. Amey Nargolkar. During the
period, I had instructed them to take appropriate actions to defend the
Plaintiff in income tax proceedings where there were issues of tax
liability & other high-stakes matters only. For certain matters
instituted in and after 2017, I had also engaged other law
firms/advocates with whom I communicated telephonically until my
return to India during 2018-19. I state that I often sought my sister's
help for issuing cheques to settle payments for the services rendered,
as my absence from India created issues of administrative continuity. I
was told that around 2020, Mr. Amey Nargolkar left M/s Vox Law to
pursue independent counsel practice.

7. I state that owing to lapse of time, while issuing instructions for
drafting the present plaint in 2026, I inadvertently forgot that I had
instructed the issuance of a notice and did not enquire whether any
action was taken, or whether he had sent or received any
correspondence about the matter. I state that this lapse on my part led
to a gap in the documentation, which was not deliberate nor
intentional.

8. I state that I understand that the Defendant has raised an issue
in the present Suit regarding my decision to selectively prosecute the
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 41 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

infringing use of the song Keh Doon Tumhe from the Plaintiff's film
Deewar in the film Baadshaho in the year 2017. I state at the time I
was focusing only on legal disputes with the most egregious cases of
infringement in Bollywood. I state around the first week of August
2017, I came across news articles reporting the release of the track
Socha Hai from the film Baadshaho, which was described as the
'remixed version' of the 'yesterhit Keh Doon Tumhe' from Deewar.
Upon listening to the infringing song available online, it became
evident that the lyrics and tune of the Keh Doon Tumhe was
reproduced in the said song without any authorization from the
Plaintiff and seemed to form a central part of the film's marketing
efforts. The fact that the infringing song seemed to be central to the
plot of the said film rendered the Badshaho case particularly
egregious. Copies of some articles covering the launch of the
infringing song Socha Hai are being filed along with this Affidavit to
demonstrate that the infringing song in that case was central to the
film. Accordingly, I gave instructions for immediate action in the
matter and authorized Mr. Umesh G Mehta to represent the Plaintiff
in the legal proceedings. I state that the authorization to Mr. Mehta
minimized the requirement of my day-to-day involvement in the
matters.

9. Since I was able to devote limited time to legal matters, the
exploitation of the Plaintiff's song Gali Gali mein in the film KGF
Chapter 1 escaped my attention as it was not a Bollywood film but a
Kannada film which was also dubbed in Hindi.”

Affidavit of Mr.Umesh G Mehta dated 10.05.2026: -

“3. In 1997, after the attempt on Mr. Rajiv Rai's life, the Plaintiff's
office in India was operating with minimal staff and functional
capacity and I was in-charge of managing the day-to-day affairs of
the Plaintiff on Mr. Rajiv Rai's instructions. I state that my routine
tasks included administration of the office and fulfilling jobs entrusted
upon me by the Directors of the Plaintiff company.

4. I state that I was not authorized to initiate legal action or make a
decision regarding any legal matter unilaterally without prior
instructions from Mr. Rajiv Rai. In fact, I was not privy to details of
all the legal matters that were pursued on the instructions of Mr. Rajiv
Rai, as he considered some discussions confidential.

5. I state that only when any legal proceeding has to be filed before
any court, I am authorized to access the Plaintiff's records to peruse
them and to sign and execute all the requisite documents.

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 42 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

6. As for a legal action in relation to the film Azhar, I state that Mr.
Rajiv Rai directed me to telephonically instruct the lawyers to issue a
legal notice in the year 2016. However, neither was I aware of the
dispatch of the legal notice issued nor was I expected to follow up on
the matter with the said law firm. I was only in touch with Mr.
Nargolkar and other lawyers as expressly directed by Mr. Rai as the
engagement of lawyers had financial implications, which needed his
prior approval. Follow up on all legal matters was done only by Mr.
Rai based on the priorities that he had decided. When the present suit
had to be filed, I used the records maintained in office and made
statements as contained in the plaint which were all correct to my
knowledge. I had no reason to believe that there was any
correspondence exchanged on the matter.

7. When the present suit had to be filed, I had forgotten the telephone
conversation from ten years ago. I used the records maintained in
office and made statements as contained in the plaint which were all
correct to my knowledge.”

23. It is intriguing to note how the promoter of the plaintiff, Mr. Rajiv
Rai, has sought to explain away the non-disclosure of material facts in the
plaint. As can be observed from the contents of the affidavit, the promoter
has stated facts which appear to be not aligning with either the plaint, the
application seeking interim relief or the rejoinder. This Court does not
intend to delve into the trivial details of the inconsistencies and
contradictions, lest it may prejudice the case of the plaintiff in the long run.
However, suffice it to state that the affidavit and the contents thereof do not
instil confidence in the recitals contained in the plaint. Of course, this is not
to say that the plaintiff may not have a case on merits or that the plaintiff is
disabled from establishing infringement of its copyright; however, for the
purposes of consideration of an application seeking interim relief under
discretionary jurisdiction, the same gathers great significance.
24. The contents of the affidavit of Mr. Umesh G. Mehta is completely
contrary to the stand taken by the plaintiff with respect to the legal
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 43 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

authorization conferred upon him, as also in respect of the controversy
surrounding the cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ . It is significant to note that
neither the promoter Mr. Rajiv Rai nor Mr. Umesh G. Mehta refer to the
use of the remixed version of the song ‘Gali Gali’ in cinematograph film
‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ which was released in the year 2019. There is total
absence of any reference to the contention of the defendant no.3 that
several suits were instituted by and on behalf of the plaintiff during the
years 2016 to 2020, when the promoter of the plaintiff is alleged to have no
touch or connection with the happenings in the industry or with lawsuits
being prosecuted in India on its behalf. Equally, and rather conveniently,
none of the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the inaction pursuant to
the reply notice dated 02.05.2016 has been explained either by the
promoter or by Mr.Umesh G. Mehta.
25. The insufficiency of, or failure to provide, a satisfactory explanation
in respect of the non-disclosure of material facts, in the opinion of this
Court, tantamount to suppression. It is trite that “suppresio veri suggestio
falsi” would disentitle a party from obtaining discretionary relief. In the
opinion of this Court, the affidavits have not been able to satisfy the
conscience of this Court that the non-disclosures were innocuous or that
such disclosures would not have adversely impacted the plaintiff.
26. It is not as if a party which may have statutory rights, has an
indelible right or guaranteed entitlement to discretionary relief, since the
very concept of discretionary relief, granted by a Court is posited on
principles of equity. In the opinion of this Court, even if a party has some
semblance of a legal right, but its conduct displaces such semblance in the
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 44 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

manner in which the present facts postulate, the Court is not bound to
exercise any such discretionary jurisdiction.
27. It cannot be canvassed by the plaintiff that the use, exploitation and
embodiment of the songs in the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’, previously in
two cinematograph films, one in the year 2016 and the other in 2019, are
facts which are neither material nor would impact, that too adversely, the
plaintiff’s case. It has to be borne in mind that almost seven to nine years
have elapsed since the previous alleged violations/infringements took place
in respect of the same cinematograph film, against which the plaintiff did
not even move a muscle. Therefore, to contend that every infringement or
exploitation without authorization would give rise to a fresh cause of
action, though may be right, but to canvass that the Court is bound to
exercise discretionary relief in such compelling circumstances, is untenable
and unpalatable.
28. To compound the above, it is also necessary to note that due to the
eerie silence and complete apathetic inaction on the part of the plaintiff in
resisting or challenging the previous alleged infringements, evidently
assured the defendant no.3 of exercising, what it claims to be complete
assignment of the copyrights in the manner best suited to it. Moreover, on
account of the complete inaction, and on account of issue estoppels,
defendant no.3 altered its position, which cannot now be rendered
detrimental to it. In that, not only did the defendant no.3 exploit the songs
by incorporating the remixed versions of the songs, over which the plaintiff
claims copyrights, but also invested hugely in entering into agreements
with third parties who produced the previous films.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 45 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

29. In the present case, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 on the
assurance and the agreement with defendant no.3 have invested huge sums
of money, time and efforts in producing the cinematograph film
‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ and cannot now be put to a detrimental or
disadvantageous position and direct them to undergo huge financial losses
merely at the askance of the plaintiff, as and when the plaintiff chooses to
awaken from its deep slumber. (See: Sanjit Singh Salwan v. Sardar
Inderjit Singh Salwan: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1697 ).
30. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and peculiar facts arising in
the present case, even if there is no statutory bar of acquiescence under the
Copyright Act, 1957, the conduct of the plaintiff, which has sadly remained
unexplained even in the affidavits, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it is well-nigh impossible to accede to the request of the plaintiff to
exercise any discretionary relief.
31. Yet another relevant aspect which needs to be pondered over is the
fact that the defendant no.3 also enclosed certain correspondences
pertaining to the years 1988-89 exchanged between plaintiff and defendant
no.3 and also had filed the agreement dated 20.06.1989. The plaintiff had
contended that the said correspondences and the agreement dated
20.06.1989 are contemporaneous documents which, when read together,
point out to the fact that the defendant recognized the copyrights of the
plaintiff in the cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ including the copyright in the
songs of the film which were assigned to the defendant no.3 only to the
limited extent of reproducing the records of the songs of the cinematograph
film ‘Tridev’ on cassettes and gramophone records on royalty basis.
However, the correspondences exchanged between the parties do not
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 46 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

appear to convey the impression that the plaintiff is attempting to interpret.
Even otherwise, what was the reason for such correspondences and for the
execution of the agreement dated 20.06.1989, cannot be gathered by this
Court without all the relevant documents of that period being placed on
record and proved in accordance with law during trial. As such, the
contentions advanced in that context can neither be tested at this stage nor
do they appeal to this Court.
32. In the context of interpretation of the agreement, the plaintiff has
relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shemaroo ( supra )
to submit that the learned Division Bench had the occasion to consider an
agreement between the parties to the suit which was almost pari materia
with the covenants in the present agreement dated 30.06.1988. According
to the plaintiff, after having considered the entire agreement, the learned
Division Bench concluded that the defendants therein did not have any
rights over the cinematograph film involved in the said suit. It is pertinent
to note that in the extract of the agreement in the case of Shemaroo
( supra ), the learned Division Bench had set out the recitals from
paragraphs 1 to para 7 of the said agreement which appear to be somewhat
similar to the present agreement.
33. However, that said, it is crucial to note that, unlike the agreement in

Shemaroo ( supra ), the present agreement dated 30.06.1988 clearly
specified what would constitute “the said work”. For the purpose of
convenience, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“WHEREAS the Producers are the absolute owners, free from all
encumbrances, of the various rights including literary, dramatic,
musical, record and cinematographic film copyrights in the firm
entitled “TRIDEV” (Hindi feature film)
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 47 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

Sunny Deol, Jackie Shroff, Naseeruddin Shah, Madhuri & others. *
[hereinafter referred to as the "said work" ]
AND WHEREAS the Producer hereby warrants and assures the
company that they are the sole authors and absolute owners, free of
all encumbrances, of the copyrights in the said work including the
right to make gramophone records, magnetic tape or any other sound
bearing contrivancies or appliances or plates or records of the music,
dialogues , and/ or other works embodied in the said work ;”

[emphasis supplied]

33.1 The aforesaid has to be necessarily read in conjunction with

para 2(i) and (xi) of the agreement dated 30.06.1988 which are
extracted hereunder:
“(i) all rights, titles and interests in the literary, dramatic
and musical works embodied in the said work including
all rights of publication, sound broadcasting, public
performance and mechanical reproduction and recording
of the said work ;
(xi) the right to make or authorise the making of any
versions of the said work , and or of the musical, literary
and dramatic works embodied in the said work including
the right to perform and or broadcast and /or transmit
such versions;”
[emphasis supplied]
33.2 The paragraphs 7, 8 and 12 of the agreement dated 30.06.1988
reads thus:
7. ADAPTATIONS:
The Producers agree that in exercising their rights
hereunder the company shall be entitled to add, to take
from and alter the said work for the purpose of adaptation
for reproduction of the said work in the form of records
and may combine the said work with any other work
including a literary, dramatic, artistic and/or musical
work.
8. AUTHORSHIP:
The company shall be the owner of the Original Plate
from which the records are made a t the time of making of
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 48 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

plate of the said work and shall be construed as the
Author of the said records.
12. ENTITLEMENT :
The producers agree that all the rights and obligations
under this Assignment shall be construed to apply to all
son dialogues and sequences to be included in the said
work irrespective of the fact that the said songs, dialogues
and/or sequences find a place in the final or any other
version of the said work.
The Company shall not be bound to insert in and shall be
at liberty to remove from and /or restore to its catalogue
at any time in its absolute discretion the records of the
said work.
The Company shall be entitled to sell records of the said
work at such price or prices as the Company shall think fit
and shall also be entitled from time to time and at any time
hereafter to alter/change the prices of such records or to
cause or permit them to so altered.

33.3 Read conjunctively and harmoniously, the aforesaid extracts
of the definition of “the said work” with para 2(i) and 2(xi)
coupled with paras 7, 8 and 12, prima facie propel this Court
to the opinion that the agreement in Shemaroo ( supra ) may
not be entirely pari materia with the present agreement. It is
pertinent to note that this distinctive feature of the definition of
the “said work” is conspicuous by its absence in the agreement
examined by the learned Division Bench in Shemaroo
( supra ). In the opinion of this Court, para 2 clearly assigns and
specifies the nature of the rights, titles and interests in the
literary, dramatic and musical works “ embodied in the said
work ” and also grants the right to make or authorize the
making of any versions of the said work and/or the musical,
literary and dramatic works “ embodied in the said work ”,
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 49 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

including the right to perform, broadcast and/or transmit such
versions.
33.4 Para 7 of the agreement specifies that the plaintiff/producer
agreed that the defendant would be entitled to add, to take
from and alter “the said work” for the purpose of adaptation or
reproduction of “the said work” in the form of records and
“may combine the said work” with any other work including a
literary, dramatic, artistic and/or musical works. Para 8 of the
said agreement further specified and conferred the authorship
of the Original Plate. It provided that the defendant no.3 would
be the owner of the Original Plate from which the records
were to be made at the time of making of the Plate of “the said
work” and the defendant no.3 was to be construed to be the
Author of the said records. Therefore, not only was the
defendant no.3 the owner of the Original Plate, but also the
author of the records, as specified in para 1(b) of the
agreement.
33.5 It is also relevant to note that, while the words “the said work”
have been selectively used in para 2, particularly in relation to
the rights and title assigned to defendant no.3, the word
“record” has been employed selectively to connote different
meanings.
33.6 It would also be pertinent to note the recitals of para 12 of the
agreement. It provides that the plaintiff agreed that all rights
and obligations under the said assignment shall be construed
to apply to all songs, dialogues and sequences to be included
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 50 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

in “the said work”, irrespective of the fact that the said songs,
dialogues and/or sequences find a place in the final or any
other version of “the said work”.
33.7 A holistic and harmonious reading of the aforesaid covenants,
appear to be in the humble opinion of this Court, granting all
right and title in the musical, literary and dramatic works in
the “said work” i.e. which included the cinematograph film,
however, excluded the cinematograph film by itself by
incorporation in the definition of record contained in para 1 of
the agreement. Ostensibly, this appears to be the sole reason
why the defendant no.3 has not exploited the copyright in the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ by itself. Other than that, this
Court is unable to accede to the contention that the plaintiff
has still retained, prima facie , any rights over the musical,
dramatic or literary works embodied in the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ . In fact, it appears that the defendant no.3 is at liberty
to produce/reproduce remixed versions of the songs in the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ . That, precisely, appears to be the
only reason why the plaintiff did not initiate any legal action
qua the use and exploitation of certain songs in the
cinematograph films ‘Azhar’ and ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’.
34. To the argument of the plaintiff in respect of the invocation of the
doctrine of contra proferentem , in the humble opinion of this Court, none
of the judgments relied upon, are required to be considered by this Court.
This is for the reason that, if and only if there is any ambiguity in the
language employed in a particular document, that the said doctrine needs to
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 51 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

be invoked. In view of the fact that this Court has analyzed the recitals in
the agreement dated 30.06.1988, there does not seem to be any clause
which is ambiguously worded. However, since this Court is presently
examining the covenants only on a prima facie basis, no concrete opinion is
being rendered, lest it may prejudice any of the parties in trial.
35. With that aforesaid backdrop, this Court shall now examine whether

any of the judgments relied upon by the parties would be relevant at this
stage.
36. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff had extensively relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bengal Waterproof Limited (supra)
and M/s Power Control (supra) to contend that acquiescence, as a defence,
is available only in certain statutory jurisdictions, whereas in the Copyright
Act, 1957, there is no such statutory presumption or objection available to a
defendant. It was contended that there is a distinction between mere
negligence and acquiescence, in that, if the plaintiff being fully aware,
permits the defendant to build up an important trade until it becomes
necessary to crush it, acquiescence would stand proved while, under the
Copyright Act, 1957, there is no such statutory acquiescence available to
the defendant. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel delay,
negligence or any inaction on the part of the plaintiff would neither enure
to the benefit of the defendant nor could it be stated to be acquiescence on
the part of the plaintiff.
37. Though there is no quarrel with the propositions laid down in the
aforesaid judgments, however, the concepts developed and the principles
enunciated therein, would enure to the benefit of the defendants. In that, by
virtue of the reply notice dated 02.05.2016, the defendant no.3 asserted
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 52 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

complete rights on the anvil of the agreement dated 30.06.1988, followed
by actual use and exploitation of certain songs from the cinematograph film
‘Tridev’ by incorporating the same in a remixed version not only in the
cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ in the year 2016 but also in the cinematograph
film ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’ in the year 2019. Thus, it is not merely an assertion
of the rights but also the assertion of such rights by actual exploitation,
against which the plaintiff did not take any action despite having issued the
legal notice dated 26.04.2016 qua the cinematograph film ‘Azhar’ which
stands as an insurmountable wall. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the
plaintiff to contend to the contrary.
38. The plaintiff also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Nizam Sugar Factory (supra) to contend that a fact which is already in the
knowledge of the defendant, but not disclosed by the plaintiff in its plaint,
would neither amount to suppression nor to willful and deliberate non-
disclosure. Thus, it was the contention of the plaintiff that non-disclosure of
the legal notice dated 26.04.2016 issued by the plaintiff; the non-disclosure
of the reply dated 02.05.2016 issued by the defendant no.3; the receipt of
the said reply notice by the law firm ‘Vox Law’, engaged by the plaintiff
on 05.05.2016; the non-disclosure of various lawsuits instituted by the
plaintiff, at the instance of its promoter Mr. Rajiv Rai, between the years
2016 and 2020; and most importantly the non-disclosure of the use and
exploitation of the remixed version of the song ‘Gali Gali’ in the
cinematograph film ‘K.G.F: Chapter 1’, were all facts already in the
knowledge of the defendant and therefore, did not constitute concealment
of material facts which, if revealed would adversely impact the case of the
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 53 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

plaintiff or that it would disentitle the plaintiff from any discretionary
relief, does not arise.
39. This Court is unable to countenance the aforesaid contention for the
simple reason that it is these very material facts, which, if disclosed, may
disentitle the plaintiff to seek or invoke discretionary jurisdiction of this
Court. Thus, it is immaterial whether the aforesaid facts, arguendo were in
the know of the defendant no.3 or not. Assume a case where the defendant
had not appeared on advance service for any reason whatsoever, then, in
such circumstances, the Court would, in the absence of disclosure of such
material facts, possibly have been persuaded to pass an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiff, little realizing, that on disclosure of
such material facts, perhaps, the plaintiff may not be entitled to any such
discretionary relief without, atleast, hearing the defendant before grant of
any such relief. Thus, merely for the reason that the defendant had
appeared, cannot work to its disadvantage and the non-disclosure of
material facts possibly impacts adversely the case of the plaintiff which
may ultimately disentitle it from any discretionary relief. As such, the said
judgment in the present circumstances does not come to the rescue of the
plaintiff. For the same reason, the ratio of the judgment in Phushpam
Pharmaceuticals Company ( supra ) would also not apply to the facts of the
case.
40. The plaintiff placed reliance on Saregama India Ltd. ( supra ) to
submit that once the defendant had acknowledged the plaintiff’s right by
paying royalties, the doctrine of estoppels would apply and the defendant is
precluded from disputing the title of the plaintiff. In the present case, the
plaintiff contended that the defendants do not dispute that the agreement
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 54 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

dated 30.06.1988 for exploitation of certain songs in the cinematograph
film ‘Tridev’ upon payment of royalty to the plaintiff. Thus, according to
the plaintiff, the defendant no.3 presumably cannot question the title of the
plaintiff and therefore, an injunction ought to follow.
41. This Court finds that in Saregama India Ltd. (supra), the defendants

did not deny infringement during the course of their arguments, whereas, in
the present case not only does the defendant no.3 not admit any
infringement whatsoever, but actually asserts all rights, title and interest
over the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in the songs of the
cinematograph film ‘Tridev’ including the rights to exploit remixed
versions of the said songs in any other cinematograph film. Pertinently, the
defendant demonstrated or established such right by using such songs from
the said cinematograph film by incorporating remixed versions in the
cinematograph films ‘Azhar’ in the year 2016 and ‘ K.G.F: Chapter 1 ’ in
2019. Thus, the said judgment may not apply to the facts arising in the
present case and the reliance is misplaced.
42. The defendant no.3 relied upon the judgment of this Court in John
Hart Jr. & Anr. (supra) to contend that, where the loss which might have
occasioned or likely be occasioned to the plaintiff, is capable of being
adequately compensated in monetary terms, an injunction restraining
release of cinematograph film ought not to be granted. In the present case,
it is undisputed that the cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’
had already been released in cinema halls/movie theaters pan India on
19.03.2026. The plaintiff had approached this Court on 09.04.2026 and
sought a limited relief of restraining the release of the said cinematograph
film on OTT platforms and during arguments, limited its relief only to
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 55 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

restraining the use of the remixed version ‘Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)’ in the
background score appearing in the credits section.
43. While the plaintiff may be correct in contending that in case this
Court finds the plaintiff to have its copyrights subsisting the release of the
cinematograph film ‘Dhurandhar: The Revenge’ , despite the release of the
cinematograph film in Cinema Halls, an interim order restraining release of
the same in OTT platforms can still be passed, however, in the opinion of
this Court, acceding to such argument would result in an incongruous
situation. In that, so far as the broadcasting of the said cinematograph film
in Cinema Halls/Movie theaters 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. That apart, in any case, if the plaintiff is able to establish its
rights as asserted, adequate compensation in form of damages can always
be granted.
44. The contention of the plaintiff that, in case restraint of release of the
cinematograph film in OTT Platforms is not granted, despite the plaintiff’s
prima facie establishment of copyrights, the licensing regime under the
Copyright Act, 1957, would suffer, is untenable and unmerited. This is for
the reason that the opinion formed by this Court is only prima facie and the
parties will have adequate and complete opportunity to establish their rights
in accordance with law in trial, and if the plaintiff is able to establish its
rights, then, of course, the right of the plaintiff to demand any person,
including defendants to obtain permission/license from it, shall stand
vindicated. Thus, for the aforesaid reason the contention is unacceptable.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 56 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

45. Having observed as above, it appears that to do complete justice and
to balance equity as also to ensure that the plaintiff does not suffer any
monetary loss on account of the undisputed fact that the defendants,
particularly defendant no.3, is exploiting the remixed version of the song
‘Tirchi Topiwale’ on digital music platforms and might be liable to pay
royalties to the plaintiff on account of the agreement dated 30.06.1988,
which in para 1(b) contemplates “record” to include any disc, tape,
perforated roll and all other devices “( now or hereafter known )” in which
sounds are embodied for reproduction therefrom by any means whatsoever
which would align with paras 2(xi), 7 of the said agreement, the defendant
no.3 can be directed to deposit a reasonable amount in this Court. The
words “ now or hereafter known ” in para 1(b) clearly contemplate
technical advancements which may not have been envisaged in the year
1988 and would surely include within its ambit, the dissemination,
broadcasting and communication of the remixed versions of the suit songs
by way of distribution through digital music platforms too.
46. In view of the above and as a consequence, this Court is unable to
pass any orders as prayed for by the plaintiff. However, in terms of para 45
above, this Court finds it adequate to direct defendant no.3 to deposit a sum
of Rs.50 lakhs within four weeks from date in this Court. The said deposit
shall be made in the name of Registrar General of this Court, who shall
invest the said amount in an interest bearing FDR with an auto renewable
clause, which may enure to the benefit of the successful party at the end of
the trial.
47. Having regard to the aforesaid analysis, the present application is
disposed of in view of the above directions.
Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 57 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39

48. The aforesaid analysis and observations shall not tantamount to any
expression of the merits of the suit and are confined only to the
consideration for the adjudication of this application.
CS(COMM) 378/2026
49. List before the Joint Registrar (Judl.) on the date already fixed i.e.

13.07.2026.
50. List before Court on 21.08.2026.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
(JUDGE)

MAY 14, 2026/ rl

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 378/2026 Page 58 of 58

Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:14.05.2026
18:02:39