Naik Naik & Co obtain release of Jail

Bar&Bench News Network

Nov 09, 2009

Madhur Bhandarkar's movies seem to end in controversy one way or the other. Bhandarkar, whose movie 'Jail' is supposed to be his fastest movie ever, has landed in a copyright tussle. Sushila Sharma, the proprietor of Harsh Raj Productions, has sued Bhandarkar alleging copyright violations and claiming that Jail was based on her film. Sharma's movie was never released and therefore there is no basis to confirm any copyright violation.

Ameet Naik [pictured right], Managing Partner of Bombay-based media and entertainment law firm Naik Naik & Co., pointed out that the movie promos had been running for over two months and no effort had been made by Sushila Sharma to stop the release of the movie. Ameet Naik and Partner Madhu Gadodia briefed Senior Counsel Virag Tulzapurkar, who appeared for Bhandarkar. VR Dhond represented the scriptwriter, Manoj Tyagi and Vineet Naik represented Percept Picture Company, the co-producer and distributor.  Sanjay Jain argued on behalf of Sushila Sharma and AM Sarogi was the advocate on record. Speaking to Bar & Bench, Ameet said, "The entire matter was handled by our firm. We had engaged VR Dhond on behalf of Manoj Tyagi although the documentation and briefs were completed by our offices."

There have been several similar instances in the recent past of copyright suits being filed just before a movie could hits the theatres. "It is a frivolous and malicious suit filed on the eve of release 'Jail' which demonstrates that it is nothing but a blackmail action to pressurize and extract undue monies from them," said Ameet. Justice Dharmadhikari, of the Bombay High Court, before whom the matter had been listed, ruled that Sharma failed to demonstrate her title to the script, and remarked, "There is an increasing tendency to file suits against films on the eve of their release. Such moves amount to nothing but blackmail."

Ajay Devgn Films' 'All the Best' was another movie which saw a copyright suit slapped on it a week before its release. Virag Tulzapurkar had appeared on behalf of Karan Ramsay who was claiming copyright infringement. Hari Puttar was another similar case, where the litigation delayed the release of the movie. But in Krazzy 4, although a copyright violation had been brought to the Court's notice at the last minute, the Bombay High Court had asked Rakesh Roshan's production house to delete the copyrighted songs. Later the Roshans settled out of court.

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(0)




Be the first to post a comment 

Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the  comments (4)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.