The grant of discretionary interim relief is conditional upon the applicant coming to court with clean hands. Deliberate suppression of material facts, such as prior related litigation or unexplained inaction, disentitles a litigant from seeking equitable protection, regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Copyright infringement - Interim injunction - Discretionary relief - A party seeking discretionary injunctive relief must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts - Suppression or concealment of material facts, particularly those regarding prior related litigation or knowledge of past unauthorized use, constitutes 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' and warrants the denial of equitable relief - The duty of candor is a prerequisite for exercising the court’s discretionary jurisdiction. (Paras 14, 16, 25)

(B) Conduct of parties - Inaction and acquiescence - Where a party claiming copyright infringement has remained silent or failed to pursue legal remedies against similar unauthorized exploitations for an extended period, such conduct informs the court’s assessment of the balance of convenience - Delay in asserting rights, when coupled with the defendant’s investment in the subject matter, makes the grant of summary interim relief inequitable. (Paras 27, 28, 29)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a production entity, sought an interim injunction to restrain the unauthorized exploitation of musical works from its cinematograph film in a new production, alleging copyright infringement beyond the scope of a 1988 assignment agreement. The defendants contested the application, contending that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, including the issuance of prior legal notices and the pendency of earlier litigation related to the same musical works, and argued that the plaintiff’s long-standing inaction amounted to acquiescence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the plaintiff failed to disclose significant material facts regarding previous legal actions and notices, which were essential for the court to exercise its discretionary power. The court held that this suppression, combined with the plaintiff’s history of not challenging previous similar uses of the works, weighed heavily against the grant of an interim injunction. Consequently, the court declined the prayer for restraint and ordered the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as security for the successful party pending trial.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction protecting its rights in musical works, and whether the non-disclosure of past litigation and notices disentitles the plaintiff to equitable relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the exercise of discretionary relief is an equitable process requiring full disclosure. The plaintiff’s failure to inform the court of prior relevant litigation and notices constituted a deliberate suppression of material facts, which disentitled the plaintiff from the equitable remedy of an injunction, notwithstanding the merits of the underlying copyright claim.

Result: Application for interim injunction dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff seeks interim injunction for alleged copyright infringement in film songs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. dispute on assignment scope, suppression of prior litigation, and equitable relief. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. equitable relief denied due to plaintiff's suppression and lack of clean hands. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
4. court denies injunction but orders security deposit pending outcome of trial. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

ORDER :

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 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 Defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 803

Cases Referred (11)