Delhi High Court Refuses To Halt OTT Release Of Dhurandhar 2 Over Disputed 'Oye Oye' Song

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to halt the OTT release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge in a copyright dispute over the alleged unauthorised use of Trimurti Films' iconic Oye Oye song (Tirchi Topiwale) from Tridev.

The court cited Trimurti Films' “eerie silence and complete apathetic inaction” after it objected to the use of its songs in Azhar in 2016, along with its suppression of material facts, to deny interim relief.

Rejecting Trimurti's attempt to restrain only the OTT release while allowing the film's theatrical run to continue, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “This, to the mind of this Court, is inconceivable and cannot be countenanced.”

The court, however, directed Super Cassettes Industries Pvt Ltd (T-Series) to deposit ₹50 lakh with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court within four weeks, pending trial.

The order came in Trimurti Films' copyright infringement suit against Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios, Jio Studios and T-Series. Trimurti alleged that its Tridev song had been remixed and used without authorisation in Dhurandhar: The Revenge under the title Rang De Lal (Oye Oye).

Trimurti argued that its June 30, 1988 agreement with T-Series was a limited assignment. It contended that the agreement permitted manufacture and sale of records such as cassettes and gramophone records but did not permit synchronisation of songs in another cinematograph film.

It argued that the use of the original song and its remixed version in Dhurandhar: The Revenge infringed its copyright. It sought to restrain further exploitation through the film's proposed OTT release.

T-Series disputed this interpretation. It argued that the agreement assigned it rights in the literary, dramatic and musical works embodied in Tridev, including the right to create versions and adaptations.

Justice Gedela noted that Trimurti had itself issued a legal notice in 2016 objecting to the use of Tridev songs in Azhar. T-Series had replied asserting rights under the same 1988 agreement. Yet, Trimurti did not pursue legal proceedings.

The court also noted that Gali Gali, another Trimurti song from Tridev, was later used in KGF: Chapter 1 in 2019 without any legal challenge.

Explaining why this conduct weighed against interim relief, the court observed:

“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. "

The court was also critical of affidavits later filed by Trimurti's promoter Rajiv Rai and authorised representative Umesh Mehta. On this, it observed:

“The affidavit and the contents thereof do not instil confidence in the recitals contained in the plaint.”

On the interpretation of the 1988 agreement, the court made prima facie observations favouring T-Series. It held that the agreement appeared to assign T-Series rights over the musical, literary and dramatic works embodied in Tridev, while excluding the cinematograph film itself.

On that reading, the court observed:

“Defendant no.3 (T-Series) is at liberty to produce/reproduce remixed versions of the songs in the cinematograph film 'Tridev'.”

However, the court held that the royalty issue warranted interim protection.

Noting that the agreement's definition of “record” included devices “now or hereafter known,” the court prima facie held that digital dissemination and streaming could fall within its scope for royalty purposes.

It directed T-Series to deposit ₹50 lakh with the Registrar General, to be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit pending adjudication.

The court clarified that its findings were confined to the interim application and would not affect the final adjudication of the suit.

The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on July 13 and before the court on August 21.