Delhi High Court Denies Immediate Injunction Against 'Dhurandhar 2' in Copyright Dispute
The Delhi High Court has declined to issue an immediate injunction against the distribution of the highly anticipated film 'Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge', directed by Aditya Dhar and starring Ranveer Singh. This decision comes amidst a significant copyright dispute between Trimurti Films Private Limited and B62 Studios Private Limited, along with other parties including Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited.
Court Refuses to Stall Film Distribution
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela presided over the case, where Trimurti Films sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction alleging that 'Dhurandhar 2' infringes upon intellectual property rights associated with the 1989 classic film 'Tridev'. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed unauthorized use of content or music rights from the iconic song 'Oye Oye'.
In its order dated April 9, the court stated, "Having regard to the fact that the statement has already been tendered on behalf of the defendant no.1/B62 Studios Private Limited, no further particular orders in respect of passing an interim injunction may be passed at this stage as on date." This ruling allows the film, which has been enjoying a historic theatrical run since its March 19 release, to continue its commercial journey without interruption.
Mandatory Financial Record-Keeping Ordered
While denying the immediate injunction, the court implemented crucial safeguards for the plaintiff's potential financial claims. The defendants have been legally mandated to maintain comprehensive and detailed financial records of all income generated from the film's exploitation since its launch.
The court emphasized that these financial ledgers could be summoned at a later stage, potentially in a sealed cover format, to ensure that "financial equities can be safeguarded pending final adjudication." This measure provides protection for Trimurti Films' interests while the legal proceedings continue.
OTT Release Deferred to Mid-May 2026
A significant factor in the court's decision was the assurance regarding the film's digital debut. Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash, representing B62 Studios, informed the bench that there are no plans to release 'Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge' on any Over-The-Top (OTT) platform before mid-May 2026.
This statement effectively mitigated the urgency of the plaintiff's plea for a restraining order, as the digital release remains distant enough to allow proper legal proceedings to unfold.
Legal Arguments and Document Disputes
The copyright battle has seen intense legal arguments from both sides. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Super Cassettes, presented a 1988 receipt of Rs. 7,000 allegedly issued by Trimurti Films' founder Gulshan Rai. Sibal argued that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts regarding prior assignments of rights, suggesting they had not approached the court with "clean hands."
In response, Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, representing the plaintiff, contested the authenticity of these decades-old documents, stating that appropriate instructions would be obtained to file a detailed response challenging their validity.
Mediation and Future Proceedings
In an effort to reach an amicable resolution, the Delhi High Court has referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The mediation has been scheduled for April 22, 2026, with the next court hearing set for May 6, 2026. Additionally, a joint registrar review is slated for July 13, 2026.
The court has established a structured timeline for legal responses:
- The defendants have been granted ten days to file their formal replies
- The plaintiff subsequently has three days to file a rejoinder
This balanced legal approach allows the blockbuster film, which has reportedly earned approximately Rs. 1,700 crore worldwide, to continue its commercial success while ensuring that legacy copyright claims receive thorough judicial consideration.
Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on legal proceedings as reported by third-party sources. The details represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case remains ongoing, and no final verdict has been reached.
