Bombay High Court Directs Eros International to Pay Bhansali Productions a sum of Rs.19.39 lakh

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On May 4, a single-judge bench of Justice BP Collabawala through video conferencing gave an interim order against Eros International in a petition filed under the section 9 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 by Sanjay Leela Bhansali in a copyright dispute over the film Goliyon Ki Rasleela Ram-Leela.

Facts of the case

Bhansali Productions and Eros International Media Limited had co-produced and released the movie in 2013 and there was an understanding between the two with regards to rights of the film.

The petition came in response to an intimation filed by Eros International with Bombay Stock Exchange of an all-share merger with its parent company, Eros International Plc, and Hollywood’s STX Filmworks. The proposed merger is expected to come into effect by 30th June.

However, after companies started using the poster of the movie to highlight the merger, Bhansali Productions invoked the arbitration and conciliation clauses which restrained Eros International from selling, exploiting, licensing, distributing and renewing rights over the film.

Arguments of the parties

Bhansali Productions were represented by the Senior Advocate Zal Adhyarujina instructed by DSK Legal. He contended that the merger was based on incorrect disclosure and sought relief from STX Filmworks or any other company selling, exploiting, licensing, distributing, and renewing rights related to the movie.

The film was jointly produced by Bhansali Productions and Eros International Media Limited. No other company can claim its rights on the film as Sanjay Leela Bhansali was also co-producer of the movie.

However, advocates Akshay Patil and Vikrant Zunjarrao instructed by Zunjarrao & Co. representing Eros International claimed that the film was specifically mentioned in annual returns for the fiscal ending of 31st March 2019, which meant that there was no urgency to grant interim reliefs to Bhansali Productions.

Observations of the Court

The court noted that the respondents rightly pointed out paragraph 3.36 of the petition where the petitioner came across Respondent no. 2’s annual returns where the present film has been specifically mentioned and regardless of that the urgent ad-interim reliefs have been sought at the end of April 2020. Justice BP Collabawala accepting this submission made by the respondents ruled that there is no case of ad-interim relief at this stage since the court is hearing only extremely urgent matters due to COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that there are important questions of law that arise in this petition since the relief sought against the Respondent no. 2 and 3 who are certainly not parties to the arbitration agreement and that they do not fall in the jurisdiction of this court being based in the foreign countries. Hence, the court needs to have a detailed hearing after considering the law on the subject to decide against the Respondent no. 2 and 3.

However, the outstanding due amount of Rs. 19,39,241 at this stage is deemed to be payable and shall be made within a period of three weeks from the day of order.

The court also directed that the petitioner will be able to pursue the case against the respondents on merits once the court resumes working but if the courts do not resume the normal working by June 25, 2020, then the petitioner will be allowed to apply for reliefs in the petition through the same video conferencing mechanism.


Libertatem.in 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -