Delhi High Court Records Trimurti Films' Undertaking To Refrain From Making Media Statements In 'Oye Oye' Copyright Row

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded an undertaking on behalf of Trimurti Films Private Limited to refrain from addressing the press or making public allegations in its ongoing copyright dispute with Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios and T-Series over the song “Oye Oye” included in the movie Dhurandhar 2, observing that such statements could derail court-ordered mediation.

The undertaking was given during a hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela after T-Series alleged that Trimurti's promoter, Rajiv Rai, had launched a media “rampage” following the previous hearing, using derogatory language and casting aspersions on both the defendants and the judicial process.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for T-Series, sought a restraint order against further public statements, arguing that Rai had described the defendants as “thieves” and suggested that the court had failed to appreciate the merits of the case.

“The plaintiff goes on a rampage in the media… suggests that it was not heard because of another case. We are called thieves,” he submitted, adding that such remarks were harming the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge, which is currently in theatres. “Damage is being caused to the film which is the subject matter of this proceeding… saying that this is theft etc.”

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar, appearing for Trimurti Films, argued that a formal restraint order would amount to impermissible “image management” and would be unsustainable in law. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in ANI v. Wikimedia, she submitted that sub judice restraints on parties are not ordinarily warranted.

She stated that the remarks attributed to Rai were made out of “anguish” by a 75-year-old who believes his intellectual property has been misappropriated.

“I will give an undertaking, through the pendency of the mediation, that I won't speak about this matter at all, good or bad… Till mediation is over,” she submitted, while maintaining that “a restraint order… is not sustainable in law.”

“Sometimes… an individual's voice is the only thing that they have… But for the duration of the mediation, I will not speak… That much I am willing to undertake,” she added.

The court, while noting that personal remarks against the bench were “irrelevant”, emphasised that public accusations between parties could escalate the dispute and undermine mediation.

“So far as whatever he has said about the judge, we are not really concerned… but… you call them thieves… Are you not escalating it?” Justice Gedela observed.

Warning that such exchanges could “definitely derail your mediation," the court urged both sides to maintain restraint. “Either you trust the court process or you don't… If there is faith, then kindly stop this,” the judge remarked.

In view of the undertaking, the court refrained from passing any interim restraint order at this stage and clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the defendants' application.

Recording the submission, the court directed that the undertaking shall continue until May 6, 2026, when it will consider both the application and the merits of the dispute.