Adv Kapil Sankhla for petitioner John Hart Jr says he is resident in America. He adds that understanding was that it would be released in theatres. There was no way this would release OTT
Court says it is of no use to say that petitioner has made other prolific movies. Petitioner should show why injunction should be given last minute, Court says.
Staying in US in no ground. It is a world wide web. Simple google search you would know movie is being released... you cannot surprise... last minute....: Court
Adv Sankhla says there were certain due diligences made in America before Hollywood movies are made. These diligences were not made in this case, he says.
In Hollywood, any studio does a due diligence before movie is shot. If diligence is done, they would have seen copyright is with me and contacted me: Adv Sankhla
Where have you shown that the (due diligence) process exists? Court asks
My right is unchallenged since that day. I am a man of some standing in Hollywood. I would be under bonafide belief that process that was followed throughout would be followed in this case:Adv Sankhla
I did not know some person sitting in India would flout this process, he adds
Your list of dates doesn't seem to indicate that the defendants are simply someone sitting in India. So don't tell me "somebody sitting in India" has suddenly violated your copyright and taken a movie: Court
Sonia Mudbhatkal is in Hollywood... she is the first Tony-nominated producer of Hollywood. She contacted plaintiff no.1 (Hart) to make the movie. ... I purchased ten days after slumdog millionaire (movie came out): Adv Sankhla
2011 there are differences between the plaintiff (Hart) and his partner. Therefore, there is a substantial delay in launching the movie, Adv Sankhla says
My right of adaptation of movie is absolute. This is an OTT release on Netflix. For them, it is a commercial venture but not for me. I can never make the grand movie I had envisaged. This dream of mine can never be compensated in terms of money milord: Adv Sankhla
You may have grand dreams. Merely saying my dreams will be shattered is no ground to say there should be an injunction on the release of the film. We are coming back to square one: Court
You have sent a legal cease and desist in 2019. You have come to the court less than 24 hours before the movie's release: That is more than enough to say injunction cannot be granted in view of existing legal position: Court
However watertight your case may be, a person who approaches court in last minute has to make out... stopping a release of a movie has serious ramifications on producers, director, channel... you are not the only one whose finances are in consideration: Court
I am not trying the suit. I do not know what the ultimate outcome of the suit will be: Court
For you, it is more a question of dreams being shattered. (but an injunction) is going to have serious financial repercussions on the makers. They also may have dreams that the movie may launch them, that it will become a hit: Court
This is my swan song. That entitles me to the protection of this Court... with the history... kind of awards I have received, I deserve the mercy of the court. The financial ramifications are limited (for the other side): Adv Sankhla
This (release of White Tiger on @netflix) would be the height of piracy. I have purchased rights on the international forum... in India itself, these rights are being taken away: Adv Sankhla
Heavens won't fall for Netflix (if the injunction is granted today). This is just another movie for them to release... for me my right would go away: Adv Sankhla
Adv Sethi: The power of attorney filed of the first plaintiff on page 560... the last line of first para is 9 Dec 2020. And your Lordship is approached on January 21 for an injunction today.
This case is a textbook example for why no ad-interim relief should be given, as was in the case in the "Lootcase case" where Court deprecated the practice of coming to court last-minute, Adv Chopra submits.
We have proceeded to make this film not in a vacuum but with Lava Media (Defendant 7), which is a subsidiary of a company which is Defendant 1: Adv Chopra
We are told OTT can be delayed by days. We have a calendar of releases lined up. To trivialise an OTT release is really an irresponsible submission. What is amazing is on perusal of para 22 .. has enough material to deny this entity an interim injunction: Adv Chopra
Referring to the defendant's arguments that Particle Media (the company defendants are claiming has right in the book) is owned by the defendant 1 (Mukul Deora) "My instructions are that this incorrect", says Sankhla
Raj Lakhani, who is not a party here, owns Particle Media. There have been various shell companies created. It is to confuse the issue as regards ownership of book rights, Adv Sankhla submits.
Law is very clear, but when it is a fact when the right (to the book) has been purchased by P1 at a substantial sum of money from the author and when P1 is in the process of making a grand move, heavens will not fall if OTT release is delayed by few days: Adv Sankhla
First of all, let us get one thing on the table. The suit was jointly filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2... you are appearing for both. You cannot say "P2 gave some agreement, P1 has the copyright, whatever P2 had with Particle is of no concern": Court
These paragraphs that you have read indicate there is a veritable network of agreements... you had not chosen to place any of these on record, except to make an averment in the plaint: Court
If you think I am going to give you relief without placing any of these on record, you are badly mistaken. Why should I not take... that this is not an open and shut case of blackmail?: Court
Don't blame corona for everything. You are aware from 2019..for a half baked story, you want the court to give you an interim injunction? I am not convinced. There is absolutely nothing: Court
Your conduct is inviting severe costs now. This is the limit. I never realised... If it was a writ petition, I would have thrown out right away. Since it is a suit...: Court
Court records plaintiff's submissions that there was a literary auction agreement with Plaintiff 1, that "The White Tiger" was to be an Oscar-worthy production, submissions on the various creditable achievements of Plaintiff 1 etc.
Court records submission that Plaintiff 1 (Hart) had allowed Plaintiff 2 (Sonia Mudbhatkal) to work on the movie, but that no rights devolved on defendants.
Court records plaintiff's submission that Plaintiff 1 came to know of @netflix making the film only in October 2019 and that a legal notice was issued, and that there was no impression that film shooting was taking place amid COVID pandemic.
Court records plaintiff submission that in Hollywood, a copyright holder has no reason to apprehend a copyright infringement & that any studio seeking to make a film based on Aravind Adiga's novel would have contacted P1 as "rightful copyright holder" in the interest of diligence
Court records Adv Sankhla's submissions (for plaintiffs) that defendants made several misrepresentations to which plaintiff 1 succumbed.
Court records submission by the plaintiff that allowing Netflix release of the film tonight would lead to irreparable injury to the plaintiff, both financial and emotional, his dreams being shattered and his desire to make and release a magnum opus.
Court records submissions made by Sankhla that the defendants are committing heights of piracy which would result in complete evisceration in plaintiff's right, emanating from the literary auction agreement of 2009.
Court record's Sankhla submission that delay in approaching court was unavoidable and that defendants had "led plaintiff down the garden path" on the aspect of film shooting.
Court notes Sethi's submission for defendants that cause of action, as per plaint, went as far back as October 2019 and that Sankhla has only drawn the attention of Court to one side of the story.
Court refers to the communication dated 11 Oct 2019 by defendants denying plaintiff's claims to the film rights, records Sethi's submission also on the aspect of there being an agreement between Plaintiff and Particle Media (defendant's co.)
Court records submissions by Sethi there was a settlement agreement in 2014 where Rs 53 lakhs was paid consequent to which Plaintiff 2 waived all rights against Particle Media qua the "White Tiger" & present project. Court records submission that this was suppressed by plaintiffs
Court records submission by Sethi that therefore there is no reason why the suit is filed less than 24 hours before the release of #WhiteTiger (on Netlfix).
Court records submissions by defendants that distinction drawn by Sankhla between theatre and OTT platforms is divorced from reality and that OTT releases also involve huge finances and goodwill which cannot be compromised.
Court: It is no answer to the delay that owing to COVID that plaintiffs were under impression that no shooting would take place or that film would not be released.
Nor can it be their stand, in wake of the legal notice. that plaintiffs expected due diligence on the part of any person making the film on "White Tiger" and to be informed in advance prior thereto - Court says.
It is settled that any party approaching court at the end hour, seeking interlocutory indirection against the release of cinematographic film, is disentitled to any such relief- Court says.
2. Paras 38-34 of plaint... clearly indicate prima facie that defendant 1 was not stranger while progressing film "White Tiger". There is reference to agreements between Defendant 1 and the company of Plaintiff 2. None of these documents is on record - Court
... there is more to the case than meets the eye. Without having the aforesaid documents and chance to peruse.. this cannot court cannot come at prima facie finding that defendants have infringed the copyright of plaintiffs.
It is not possible on the material of record to come to conclusion by producing or releasing the film, that defendants have indulged in illegal copyright infringement - Court
3. Court says there are considerable financial ramifications on both sides. The release of a film is merely the culmination of protracted exercise including production, promotion, publicity.
I am prima facie, inclined to agree with Sethi that if the release of the film is stayed, it would result in irreparable consequences for the defendants: Court adds.
Plaintiff 1 is admittedly not the original creator of "White Tiger", he has been assigned the right to film the said literary work under a literary auction agreement dated March 4, 2009... : Court
Court, however, asks defendants to keep detailed accounts of earnings from the film, in case the plaintiffs later succeed in their suit against the defendant-filmmakers.
Even if the film is released and plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the suit, it would be possible to recompensate them monetarily even for emotional trauma, which, acc to Sankhla, Plaintiff 1 would undergo as a result of his not being able to be the first to film #WhiteTiger:Court
On a holistic consideration of the facts, especially as plaintiffs have chosen to move court less than 24 hours of the release of the subject film, plaintiffs have not been able to make out a case for grant of ad-interim injunction staying release of the film: Court
Having said that, defendants, even while permitted to release the film as scheduled are directed to keep detailed accounts of earnings made from film so that at a later stage, if the plaintiff succeeds, Court can consider monetary compensation: Court
After getting discharged from the JJ Hospital, Mumbai today, ex-CEO of BARC @parthodasgupta’s lawyers moved the #BombayHighCourt seeking urgent transfer to a private hospital on the grounds that he was still unfit to be discharged.
Justice PD Naik who heard the plea in his chambers after court working hours refused to intervene and grant any interim relief.
Chief PP Deepak Thakare submitted to the Court that @parthodasgupta was being discharged because he was fit and would be examined by the prison officials before taking him in.
The court has directed the State to submit the medical report on Monday.
Yesterday, a Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula had asked the parties to come up with interim arrangement for functioning of the firm and for the benefits of its clients.
#MadrasHighCourt requests Advocate General to look into suggestions that may be made by Party-in-Person and temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan on how the functioning of the HR&CE Department can be improved for the welfare of temples in Tamil Nadu.
While making submissions in a PIL moved against State's decision to use temple land in Kallakurichi for the construction of a collectorate building, Narasimhan had raised a larger grievance that the HR&CE Department is not taking care of temples in Tamil Nadu.
Responding to submissions that the State's construction activities would end up lands becoming "concrete jungles", #MadrasHighCourt CJ Sanjib Banerjee orally observes,
"The way we're procreating, we will leave very little green land in 50 years’ time."
Justice Ashok Bhushan led bench of the #SupremeCourt to shortly hear plea filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt to suspend his sentence in a custodial death case of 1990. #custodialdeath
The incident pertained to the time when Sanjiv Bhatt was the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar. Bhatt had taken over 100 persons into his custody for an incident of rioting in the area #SupremeCourt
Lawyer seeks an adjournment as instructing counsel is not present
Senior Adv Mahender Singh: Last time it was Senior not there and today this. This pendency is being used in trial court