The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed its displeasure over the conduct of director Rajeev Rai in making statements against Aditya Dhar’s production house and T-Series in connection with the ongoing copyright infringement suit over ‘Rang De Lal – Oye Oye’ from the film Dhurandar 2, after the court referred the parties to mediation.
The song “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)” from Dhurandhar 2 was released under the music label T-Series, which owns the music rights to the film’s soundtrack. However, Trimurti Films later filed a copyright infringement case against Dhar’s production company, B62 Studios and T Series, alleging unauthorized use of the song “Tirchi Topiwale” from Tridev’s film in the track “Rang De Lal – Oye Oye”.
On April 9, the court referred the parties to mediation and asked them to appear before the mediator on April 22.
A bench of Justice Tusshar Rao Gidela observed that once a litigant resorts to the judicial process, restraint is expected in public comment on non-judicial matters. The court added that although parties are free to hold personal opinions, making assumptions or commenting on the dispute during the course of the proceedings is inappropriate.
Read also: Copyright row: Delhi HC refers dispute over ‘Oye Oye’ song in Dhurandhar 2 to mediation
“It is the sanctity of court proceedings, and you are in front of the court. You may be right or wrong. But yes, as far as the other party is concerned, you call them thieves, maybe before you come to court, it could be right or wrong, we don’t know, but after you come to court and we send you to mediation, won’t you escalate the matter? You can say anything, but if you start making attributions, it is not right. Please ask him no.” “To talk,” the bench told Rai’s lawyer.
The court made these observations while dealing with an application filed by Dhar Productions and T-Series seeking to restrain Rai from making statements against them.
They alleged in their application that after the April 9 court hearing and agreement to mediation, Rai held a press conference and made several statements against them, including calling them “thieves.”
T-Series’ lawyer Akhil Sibal, along with advocate Aditya Gupta and Nizam Pasha, appearing for Dhar, submitted that such actions were adversely affecting the film, which is currently running in theatres.
Sibal said a litigant cannot seek relief before the court while simultaneously making public allegations, commenting on the dispute and using offensive language. He stressed that the statements included accusations against the opposition parties and were tantamount to publishing a parallel narrative in the media about an issue awaiting adjudication.
However, Trimurti Films’ lawyer maintained that although Ray’s statements were made out of pain, he remained fully committed to the mediation process. The lawyer therefore pledged not to make any statements against the opposing parties in the press until May 6, the date of the next hearing, when the court will consider Trimurti Films’ application for interim relief on the merits.
