Back
Sides Against Film Icon in Song Remix Battle, Clears OTT Path for 'Dhurandhar'
In a closely watched copyright clash blending Bollywood nostalgia with modern streaming wars, the has refused interim relief to veteran producer Trimurti Films Private Limited. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed pleas to block the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge , which features a remix of the hit 'Tirchi Topiwale' from Trimurti's classic Tridev . Citing suppression of key facts and past inaction—despite similar uses in films like Azhar () and K.G.F: Chapter 1 ()—the court prioritized equity over immediate restraint, directing defendant Super Cassettes Industries Ltd (T-Series) to deposit Rs 50 lakhs as a protective measure.
From Deal to 2026 Showdown: The Tridev Tune's Tangled Rights
Trimurti Films, founded by the late Gulshan Rai and now helmed by son Rajiv Rai—known for blockbusters like Tridev , Mohra , and Gupt —claims exclusive ownership of copyrights in 'Tirchi Topiwale', including lyrics by Anand Bakshi and music by Kalyanji-Anandji. In , Trimurti assigned limited rights to T-Series for audio records like cassettes, arguing no permission extended to syncing the song (original or remixed as 'Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)') into new films.
Defendants B62 Studios (producer), unnamed D-2 (likely Jio Studios), and T-Series countered that the agreement granted broad rights over underlying literary, musical, and dramatic works
"embodied in the said work"
(
Tridev
), including adaptations and versions for exploitation. The film, released theatrically on , uses the remix in credits and background, now eyed for OTT amid Trimurti's suit under .
As news reports noted post-verdict, the court highlighted how Trimurti's notice over Azhar 's use of other Tridev songs went unchallenged after T-Series's reply asserting rights—yet no follow-up suit ensued, even as K.G.F remixed another track in .
Plaintiff's Melody: Limited License, Fresh Infringement Each Time
Led by , Trimurti urged a strict reading of the pact: rights confined to "records" (discs, tapes, excluding film soundtracks), with royalties unpaid and no sync rights granted. They invoked Shemaroo Entertainment v. Amrit Sharma (, 2012) for similar pacts barring film use, stressing each exploitation triggers a new cause under . Past inaction? Mere commercial choice, not waiver— demands formal relinquishment notice. Sought takedown from platforms, no OTT release of infringing bits.
Defendants' Harmony: Full Assignment, Unclean Hands Silence the Claim
T-Series (), Jio (), and B62 () fired back: plaint hid notices, active -2020 suits by Trimurti (despite Rai's "exile" claim post-1997 threats), and zero action on prior Tridev remixes. Agreement's "said work" explicitly includes Tridev 's copyrights minus the film itself; paras 2(i),(xi),7 allow adaptations/remixes. and distinguish negligence from , but here, conduct induced reliance—defendants invested post-silence. OTT block? Incongruous with theater run; damages suffice ( ).
Parsing the Agreement: Prima Facie Power to T-Series?
Justice Gedela applied the triple test—, , —but pivoted on "." Plaint omissions (e.g., Azhar notice, K.G.F use, ongoing litigations) were "suppression," unexplained by affidavits from Rai and manager Umesh Mehta, rife with contradictions ( affirmed: concealers lose equity).
Parsing the pact holistically: "Said work" encompasses Tridev 's literary/musical elements; defendant owns "original plate," authors records (para 8), can alter/combine (para 7). Unlike Shemaroo , explicit definitions prima facie grant remix rights—explaining past silence. No ambiguity triggers . bars discretion, though no statutory estoppel ( ).
Precedents like (unclean hands deny injunction) and (discretionary equity) sealed it. didn't save plaintiff—facts were material, risking ex parte tilt.
“A party seeking discretionary relief has to approach the Court with and must not suppress or conceal material facts which, if revealed or disclosed, would adversely impact the case of the party.”
“ would disentitle a party from obtaining discretionary relief.”
“In the opinion of this Court, acceding to such argument would result in an incongruous situation [OTT vs theaters].”
No Injunction, But Rs 50 Lakh Safety Net—A Balanced Crescendo
Application dismissed; no OTT block, no takedowns. Yet, equity demands: T-Series deposits Rs 50 lakhs in court FDR, for trial victor. Observations prima facie only—merits await full trial (next: ). Implications? Bolsters music majors' remix claims under old pacts, warns plaintiffs on disclosures amid streaming boom. Trimurti can still prove rights, chase damages; defendants stream freely, but royalty clouds loom.
This ruling echoes broader tensions: legacy catalogs vs digital reinvention, where silence may harmonize into surrender.
