Legal Analysis of Bombay High Court’s Order Against Release of Netflix’s ‘Betaal’

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

Follow us

K.R. Shriram of the Bombay High Court recently passed an order refusing interim injunction to halt the worldwide release of Netflix series ‘Betaal’. Sameer Wadekar and Mahesh Goswami, filed a copyright infringement plea against Red Chilies Entertainment and Netflix. The writers claim that the producers have plagiarized their original story ‘Vetaal’. 

Brief Facts of the Case 

The plaintiffs are screenwriters registered with Screen Writers Association. They had penned VETAAL way back in 2013-2014 and got it registered in 2015. Sameer Wadekar had shared his script with different producers but it was a failed effort. Subsequently, in May 2020 Wadekar came across the trailer of Netflix’s Betaal on Youtube. He claimed that in the 146 seconds trailer he found 13 similarities between Netflix’s Betaal and his Vetaal. Hence, he approached the Court with infringement and plagiarism action. Meanwhile, a plea for interim injunction was made against releasing Betaal for worldwide viewership. 

The Order and it’s Analysis 

The judge dismissed the plea based on three primary reasons: 


First, the Court asked whether the defendants had access to the plaintiff’s work in order to copy it. According to the plaintiff, Vetaal is a work of fiction and ‘absolutely original’. The plaintiff did not have direct communication with the defendants. However, he had shared his work with a number of producers including one Wilson Louis who claimed to have ‘some connections at Netflix.’ In cases of unpublished work, it is required to establish how the defendants got hold of the plaintiff’s work.  However, in today’s day and age sharing information is easy. When there is compelling evidence of infringement, the link should be pursued aggressively. 

Delay in filing the suit

Second, the Ld. Judge questioned the delay and latches in filing the suit. The plaintiff argued that he did not know about the web-series until the release of trailer in May 2020. The defendants claimed that they had run several print and online publications of general readership and popular to the trade and business of movies and general entertainment. These publications contained reports airing an original web-series called BETAAL with a description of a web-series in those articles.

The publications were made in mid 2019, leaving the plaintiff considerable amount of time to file suit. Delay in filing infringement suit, especially in cases of cinematography, has been an important factor for rejecting claim.

Support of Case laws

In the case of Kanungo Media (P) Ltd., vs Rgv Film Factory And Others the Delhi High Court rejected the plaintiff’s plea for injunction on grounds of acquiescence that stems from delay and latches. The Court had further held that delay in these types of cases is particularly fatal for both the parties involved. It sabotages the money and time spent by the defendants and gives a secondary meaning to the defendants work.

On the other hand, in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia the Court held that mere delay in filing suit is not sufficient to dismiss interim injunction. The Courts have also safeguarded the rights of the plaintiff on making a compelling case without granting interim injunction.

In the case of Saregama India Ltd v Balaji Telefilms Ltd. & Ors, the plaintiff made a compelling copyright infringement case of its song ‘ui amma ui amma’ in the movie Dirty Picture. The Court allowed the release of movie on payment of 20 million to the plaintiff. However, the assumption of plaintiff’s knowledge based on publications of a four-liner description in online and print form needs deeper pondering.

Scènes à faire

In the third and final point, J. Shriram alludes to Vetalam, a story prevalent in Hindu Mythology because of the phonetic similarity with Betaal. The Ld. Judge gives a brief description of the story of Vikramaditya and Vetaal. The plaintiff has not claimed trademark infringement in the title; his contention is with the content.

The judge could also have considered the doctrine of scènes à faire. The doctrine refers to characters, places, story elements, language, etc, which are standard to some general theme or topic, and are often an indispensable part of that theme or topic. Such concepts are not copyright protected. For e.g. in the case RG Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films the Supreme Court held there is a set method of dealing with the theme of provincialism, and there can be no copyright over that theme.

Therefore, a question of infringement does not even arise. The story in the order does not seem analogous to the mythological stories of King Vikramaditya and Vetaal/ Betaal. The brief explanation of Hindu Mythology by judge has left room for speculation. It would have been helpful if similarities were drawn between the three stories involved. However, rejection based on mere similarities would impede the idea/expression dichotomy ubiquitous to copyright law. 


From the Order it is evident that importance was given to factors like how and when instead of the actual infringement. The similarities, as claimed by the plaintiff were not discussed at all. The Order overlooked idea/expression dichotomy, which is very significant in infringement cases. The Order ought to have made a detailed study into the infringement aspect before giving permission to proceed for worldwide release. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. 


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -