T-Series Tells Delhi HC That Trimurti's 1988 Assignment Lets It Use Tridev's 'Oye Oye' In Dhurandhar 2

After mediation between the parties failed on May 6, T-Series on Monday told the Delhi High Court that the 1988 assignment agreement gave it broad rights in the underlying works of the Tridev song Oye Oye, including the right to use them in another film, as it defended the use of the track as Rang De Lal in Dhurandhar: The Revenge.

Senior Counsel Akhil Sibal, appearing for T-Series, continued his submissions before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela by taking the court through the 1988 assignment agreement between Trimurti Films and T-Series.

He argued that the agreement transferred "all rights, titles and interests" in the literary, dramatic, and musical works embodied in Tridev.

Trimurti Films, the producer of the 1989 film Tridev, has sued B62 Studios, the production house behind Dhurandhar 2, directed by Aditya Dhar, and T-Series. It alleges that Oye Oye was used in the new film without authorisation.

Trimurti contends that the 1988 agreement was a limited commercial arrangement confined to records and cassettes. It says T-Series never acquired the right to synchronise the song with another cinematograph film. T-Series disputes that interpretation.

Sibal said the plaintiff's arguments about relinquishment were misplaced. "We have raised no case of relinquishment. Relinquishment is wholly irrelevant. We are on transfer. We are on assignment. It is covered by Section 18," he submitted.

Referring to Clause 1 of the agreement, Sibal emphasised the language assigning "all rights, titles and interests" in the literary, dramatic and musical works. "All rights bar none were granted in the underlying works in the widest possible manner," he argued.

He challenged Trimurti to identify what had been left behind. "The plaintiff would be hard pressed to point out which right under Section 14... has not been assigned. If we read this, the plaintiff has the burden to tell Your Lordships which right is not granted."

On Trimurti's argument that the definition of "record" excluded synchronisation rights because it excluded "a soundtrack associated with a cinematograph film," Sibal said the interpretation was unsustainable.

"This is no kind of exclusion. This is taken identically from the Act," he submitted.

He argued that the clause merely reflected the distinction between a soundtrack travelling with the original film reel and a separately exploitable sound recording. Rejecting Trimurti's interpretation, he said: "That's not the language. That's just reading in words that are not there."

Sibal also relied on Clause 7, which allowed T-Series to adapt and combine the assigned work with other works.

"This is where I specifically get the right to combine with any other work. That can be another visual, another cinematograph film," he argued.

He also pointed to Clause 8, under which T-Series became owner of the original plate and author of the records. "It couldn't be more expansive than this," he submitted.

Justice Gedela, during the exchange, tested the breadth of that proposition. "Because that is available to you... to use the literary work... or even some part of the musical score in a different adaptation or a different version in a cinematographic film which has no connection with this?" the judge asked.

Sibal responded: "It can be done because I have got all rights in the underlying works. Exactly why I can do it."

The court then observed, "Prima facie, the distinction that it's a different movie... is a specious distinction."

T-Series also relied on a December 2025 Delhi High Court ruling involving Saregama, where similar arguments over limited assignment of music rights were rejected at the interim stage.

The hearing then turned to the suppression issue that has featured prominently in the case. T-Series challenged a fresh affidavit filed by Trimurti Films' managing director seeking to explain why the company took no action after issuing a 2016 legal notice over the use of the same song in Azhar.

Sibal said the explanation was inconsistent with Trimurti's earlier stand. "There's a total, complete shift from the rejoinder," he submitted.

He said Trimurti had earlier treated the Azhar notice as irrelevant because it was not addressed to T-Series. Now, the managing director admitted personally instructing lawyers to issue it while claiming he did not know whether the matter was pursued. "This factual goalpost can't shift," Sibal argued.

He also questioned the explanation that personal circumstances prevented follow-up, pointing to Trimurti's continued involvement in other litigation during the same period. "Something at some point, at least prima facie, based on normal course of human conduct... has a ring of falsity," he argued.

The court, however, cautioned against delving into personal matters.

When Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar sought to rely on documents concerning the managing director's personal circumstances, Justice Gedela said: "Refrain from getting into the personal parts of it."

The court also expressed concern over the expanding exchange of affidavits, observing: "This can't go on." Sibal concluded by saying he would file a note distinguishing the judgments cited by Trimurti and place a few key precedents on record.

The matter remains part-heard.