Court Denies Injunction to Trimurti Films Over 'Tridev' Song Rights; Cites Wilful Suppression of Facts

In a significant ruling for copyright litigation in the digital age, the High Court of Delhi has declined to grant an interim injunction to renowned production house Trimurti Films Private Limited against B62 Studios and others. The case centered on the alleged unauthorized use of the iconic 1989 song 'Tirchi Topiwale' from the film Tridev in the recently released movie Dhurandhar: The Revenge .

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela’s order, delivered on May 14, 2026, underscored the essential principle that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must approach the court with "clean hands."

The Core Dispute

Trimurti Films contended that a 1988 assignment agreement with Super Cassettes Industries (Defendant no. 3) was strictly limited to the production of audio records and did not permit the synchronization of the song in other films. Conversely, the defendants argued that the plaintiff had for years acquiesced in the exploitation of these songs—specifically citing their use in films like Azhar (2016) and K.G.F: Chapter 1 (2019)—without raising any legal challenge.

A Pattern of Omission

The Court turned its focus toward the plaintiff’s conduct, observing a pattern of "willful concealment." During proceedings, the defendants presented evidence that Trimurti Films had previously issued legal notices in 2016 regarding the song's usage, yet the plaintiff claimed before the court that it was unaware of these developments due to the promoter’s extended absence from India.

Justice Gedela noted the contradiction: "The promoter of the plaintiff had lost all touch with the industry and was unable to monitor any infringement of his copyrights... however, the documents... demonstrate that the plaintiff was diligently and seriously filing lawsuits... during the relevant period from 2016 onwards."

Legal Precedent and Reasoning

The Court emphasized that the right to seek an injunction is discretionary and predicated on equity. While the Copyright Act, 1957, provides specific protections, the court reiterated that a failure to disclose material facts—such as prior litigation history or the receipt of previous legal notices—constitutes suppresio veri suggestio falsi (suppression of truth, suggestion of falsehood).

Key observations from the judgment include:

• On Equitable Relief: "It is trite that 'suppresio veri suggestio falsi' would disentitle a party from obtaining discretionary relief."
• On Judicial Duty: "The power of a Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC is discretionary... one who seeks equity must do equity."
• On Business Expectations: "In view of the eerie silence and complete apathetic inaction on the part of the plaintiff... defendant no.3 altered its position, which cannot now be rendered detrimental to it."

The Verdict: Security over Injunction

Ultimately, the Court denied the request to restrain the screening of the movie Dhurandhar: The Revenge on OTT platforms, noting that the film had already seen a theatrical release. To balance the equities, the Court directed Defendant no. 3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar General of the Court. This amount, to be held in an interest-bearing FDR, serves as security should the plaintiff succeed in proving infringement at the conclusion of the trial.

The ruling serves as a stern reminder to litigants that the assertion of intellectual property rights does not exempt them from the requirements of full and honest disclosure, particularly when requesting urgent, discretionary interventions from the court.