Case Title: Everest Entertainment LLP Vs Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Date of Order: October 24, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 33036 of 2025 in Commercial IP (L) No. 32984 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:19882
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar (Vacation Court)
---
Facts
Everest Entertainment LLP, the plaintiff, claimed to be the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright and intellectual property in the Marathi film “Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy!” produced under an assignment agreement dated June 26, 2008, and its addendum dated August 28, 2013, executed with the first defendant, Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar. Under this agreement, Manjrekar, the director and original rights holder, assigned all intellectual property rights in the film—including the script, dialogues, cinematograph film, and promotional materials—to Everest Entertainment.
In 2025, the defendants, led by Manjrekar and others associated with Krizolh Filmz LLP, Satyasai Productions Pvt. Ltd., and Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., began production and promotion of a new Marathi film titled “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale.” The plaintiff alleged that the new film was a direct copy or unauthorized sequel to its earlier film. The plaintiff contended that the defendants had not only copied the storyline, theme, and characters but also used the same title format, font style, and promotional materials that were confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s work.
Everest Entertainment further asserted that the original film had gained immense popularity and goodwill among audiences and that the impugned film’s title and marketing strategy misrepresented an association or continuity, leading to public confusion and deception. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to restrain the release of the defendants’ film, scheduled for theatrical release on October 31, 2025.
---
Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed the commercial intellectual property suit on October 10, 2025, along with an interim application seeking ad-interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from releasing the impugned film. The initial bench recused itself from hearing the matter, after which the case was reassigned. On October 17, 2025, another bench directed the defendants to arrange a private screening of the impugned film for the plaintiff without background music. The screening took place on October 20, 2025.
After viewing the film, the plaintiff claimed to have identified over 30 points of substantial similarity between the two works and sought to amend the plaint accordingly. The vacation court heard the matter on October 24, 2025, when the plaintiff pressed for ad-interim injunctions restraining the release of “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale.”
The defendants strongly opposed the grant of any injunction, contending that the plaintiff had delayed unreasonably in filing the suit despite being aware of the impugned project since April 2025.
---
The Core Dispute
The core question before the Court was whether the defendants’ film “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an ad-interim injunction stopping its release.
The plaintiff’s claim was twofold: first, that there was substantial copying of its film, including the story, theme, and dialogues, constituting copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957; and second, that the defendants’ use of a similar title and presentation amounted to passing off, misleading the public into believing that the impugned film was a sequel or derivative of the plaintiff’s original film.
The defendants, on the other hand, denied all allegations. They argued that there can be no copyright in an idea, historical concept, or the name “Shivaji Raje Bhosale”, which refers to a historical and cultural figure. They contended that their film had a completely different storyline—focused on farmer distress and corruption—while the plaintiff’s earlier film was centered on a modern man rediscovering his Marathi identity with the spiritual guidance of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The defendants further claimed that they had invested crores in production and promotion and that any injunction at this stage would cause irreparable loss.
---
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar began by considering the issue of delay. The Court noted that the plaintiff had admitted knowledge of the impugned film’s production as early as April 2025 and had even issued a legal notice on April 30, 2025. Replies from the defendants were received in July 2025, yet the plaintiff waited until October 10, 2025, to file the suit. The Court found no plausible explanation for this delay. Citing earlier Bombay High Court precedents, including Anil Kapoor Film Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Make My Day Entertainment (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8119) and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (1) Mh. L.J. 474], the Court reiterated that litigants who approach the Court at the eleventh hour to stop film releases after months of inaction cannot claim equitable reliefs.
The Court held that ad-interim injunctions are discretionary and equitable remedies, which require the applicant to show bona fides and promptness. Since the plaintiff delayed nearly five months despite knowing of the alleged infringement, its request was deemed to be a tactical move to pressure the defendants close to the release date. Hence, on this ground alone, the Court held that no urgent injunction could be granted.
On the merits, the Court examined the plaintiff’s claims of copyright infringement. Justice Jamsandekar clarified that under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, a copyright in a cinematograph film is limited to protection against making a facsimile copy of the film. Referring to Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 2 Bom LR 655, the Court noted that producing a new film with similar themes or ideas does not constitute infringement unless it reproduces the original recording itself. Thus, since the defendants had independently produced their film, it could not be termed a “copy” of the plaintiff’s work.
Regarding the script and dialogues, the Court observed that the plaintiff had not produced the full script to substantiate its claim. Even from the alleged similarities, the Court found no substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s literary work. The dialogues claimed—such as “Yaj Sathi Kela Hota Attahas” or “Marathi Mansala Kana Nahi”—were considered common Marathi expressions and therefore not eligible for copyright protection. The Court reasoned that accepting such a claim would mean granting monopoly over common cultural phrases, which would be against the spirit of copyright law.
On the title and promotional material, the Court held that the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the name “Shivaji Raje Bhosale”, a historical and revered public figure. The use of this name in a film title could not amount to infringement or passing off. Both posters depicted Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, a common cultural motif, and the use of similar imagery could not be monopolized.
Thus, the Court concluded that neither the title, dialogues, storyline, nor the visuals of the impugned film amounted to any actionable infringement or passing off. Moreover, the plaintiff’s conduct lacked diligence, making it ineligible for equitable relief.
---
Final Decision
Justice Jamsandekar dismissed the plaintiff’s application for ad-interim injunctions, holding that there was both gross delay and no prima facie case of infringement. The Court emphasized that film production involves massive investment, and last-minute attempts to stall releases without timely action must be strongly discouraged.
Accordingly, the Court refused to restrain the release of “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale”, which was scheduled for October 31, 2025, and observed that the plaintiff’s remedy, if any, lies in pursuing the suit on merits after the defendants file their written statements.
---
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of promptness in seeking equitable remedies in intellectual property disputes involving films. It also reiterates settled principles of copyright law that protect the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The Court made it clear that generic titles, historical names, and culturally rooted dialogues cannot be monopolized under copyright law. The case thus reinforces the balance between protecting creative works and preserving public domain expressions within cultural heritage.
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Delay, Derivation, and the Doctrine of Ideas: Bombay High Court on Copyright in Films
2. No Copyright in Culture: The “Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale” Judgment Explained Simply
3. Of Ideas, Inspiration, and Infringement: A Legal Analysis of Everest Entertainment LLP v. Mahesh Manjrekar
4. Film Copyright and the Public Domain: Lessons from the Bombay High Court’s 2025 Ruling
5. Justice Jamsandekar on Promptness and Protection: When Delay Defeats Copyright Claims
No comments:
Post a Comment