Deliberate Suppression of Material Facts Disentitles Plaintiff to Interim Injunction Under Discretionary Jurisdiction.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to discretionary interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC despite allegations of suppression of material facts and acquiescence.

The court held

The Court denied the interim injunction, holding that the Plaintiff’s conduct and non-disclosures disentitled it to discretionary relief.

It also directed

To balance equities and protect potential royalty interests under the 1988 Agreement, the Court directed Defendant No. 3 to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs with the Registrar General of the High Court to be held in an interest-bearing FDR pending the final disposal of the suit.

The application (I.A. 9697/2026) was disposed of with these directions.

01Facts

The Plaintiff, a prominent film production house, claimed first ownership of copyright (lyrics, music, and sound recording) in the song "Tirchi Topiwale" from the 1989 film Tridev.

¶ 2-3

By an agreement dated 30.06.1988, Plaintiff assigned limited record-based exploitation rights to Defendant No. 3 (Super Cassettes), which Plaintiff argued excluded the right to synchronize the song in new cinematograph films.

¶ 4

In March 2026, Plaintiff discovered that a remixed version titled "Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)" had been incorporated into the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge, released on 19.03.2026.

¶ 5

Plaintiff sought an interim injunction against the film's streaming on OTT platforms.

¶ 7.6

Defendants countered by alleging suppression of material facts, noting that Plaintiff had failed to mention a 2016 legal notice regarding a similar use in the film Azhar and the 2019 use of another Tridev song in the film K.G.F: Chapter 1 without Plaintiff taking legal action.

¶ 8.2-8.5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to discretionary interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC despite allegations of suppression of material facts and acquiescence.

¶ 15, 26

ii.2. Whether the assignment agreement dated 30.06.1988 conferred upon Defendant No. 3 the right to create and authorize remixed versions of the work for use in other cinematograph films.

¶ 17, 33.3

03Law Applied

The court applied the "triple test" for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury).

¶ 14

Equitable principle that a party seeking discretionary relief must come with "clean hands" and disclose all material facts, as established in Wheels India v. S. Nirmal Singh and Kent RO System Limited v. Gattubhai.

¶ 16

Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (as it stood in 1988).

¶ 8.12

Precedent in Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd. v. Amrit Sharma distinguished based on specific contractual definitions of "the said work".

¶ 32-33

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Plaintiff failed the equity test due to "suppressio veri suggestio falsi".

¶ 25

Specifically, the Plaintiff’s claim that its promoter was "out of touch" with the industry from 1997–2018 was belied by records of multiple lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff during that period.

¶ 21

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s inaction following its 2016 notice regarding the film Azhar and its silence regarding K.G.F: Chapter 1 (2019) constituted a conduct that led Defendants to alter their position and invest in the new film.

¶ 28, 37

On a prima facie interpretation of the 1988 Agreement, the Court noted that the definition of "the said work" was broader than in previous precedents, appearing to assign rights to underlying musical and literary works for "any versions" and "adaptations".

¶ 33.3-33.7

The Court also highlighted the "incongruity" of restraining OTT release while the film continued to play legally in cinemas.

¶ 43