### Introduction
The case of Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms Ltd. and Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on August 6, 2025, addresses a copyright infringement dispute in the entertainment industry. The plaintiff, Ashim Kumar Bagchi, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants, including Balaji Telefilms Ltd., from exploiting the film "DREAM GIRL -2," alleging that it infringes upon his copyright in a script he claims to have authored. This interim application, decided within Commercial IP Suit No. 322 of 2023, explores the complexities of copyright protection in literary works, the threshold for establishing infringement, and the balance of convenience in granting interim relief, offering significant insights into intellectual property law in the context of cinematic works.
### Factual Background
Ashim Kumar Bagchi, the plaintiff, asserts that he is the original author of a script titled "Dream Girl," developed over several years, which he registered with the Film Writers Association in 2018. He claims to have pitched this script to various producers, including representatives of Balaji Telefilms Ltd., Defendant No. 1, in 2019, alleging that they accessed and utilized its core elements without his consent. Balaji Telefilms Ltd., a prominent film production company, released "DREAM GIRL -2" in 2023, which the plaintiff contends incorporates substantial similarities to his script, including plot, characters, and thematic elements. The defendants deny any access to the plaintiff’s work, asserting that "DREAM GIRL -2" is an original creation developed independently by their team, supported by their own creative process and registered copyright.
### Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed Commercial IP Suit No. 322 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, accompanied by Interim Application (L) No. 22738 of 2023, seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to prevent the defendants from exploiting "DREAM GIRL -2." The application was presented on grounds of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court issued notices to the defendants, and the matter proceeded with arguments from both sides. The hearing was reserved on December 16, 2024, and the judgment was pronounced on August 6, 2025, by Justice R.I. Chagla within the Commercial Division, following a detailed consideration of the evidence and submissions.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the defendants’ film "DREAM GIRL -2" infringes the plaintiff’s copyright in his script "Dream Girl," warranting an interim injunction. The dispute hinges on establishing the plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright, proving that the defendants had access to his script, and demonstrating substantial similarity between the works sufficient to constitute infringement. The plaintiff argues that the thematic and structural parallels, combined with alleged access, justify relief, while the defendants contend that their film is an original work, with any similarities being coincidental or part of common cinematic tropes, challenging the necessity of an injunction.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The plaintiff cited R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613, to argue that substantial similarity and access to a copyrighted work can establish infringement, supporting his claim for an injunction. He also referenced Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. v. Mr. Gajendra Singh, 2003 (27) PTC 573 (Bom), to assert that interim relief is warranted when copyright violation is prima facie evident. The defendants relied on Kanungo Media (P) Ltd. v. RGV Film Factory, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8395, to contend that mere similarities do not prove copying, especially without direct evidence of access. The court drew on Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, AIR 1977 SC 1443, to emphasize the need for a strong prima facie case in copyright disputes, and referenced Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcast News Ltd., 2007 (35) PTC 679 (Bom), to balance the rights of creators against public interest, influencing the judicial analysis.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice R.I. Chagla undertook a detailed comparison of the plaintiff’s script and the defendants’ film, focusing on the elements of plot, characters, and theme. The judge noted the plaintiff’s registration of the script as prima facie evidence of copyright but found the evidence of access to Balaji Telefilms Ltd. to be circumstantial and inconclusive at the interim stage. The court identified some thematic similarities but concluded that these were not substantial enough to establish infringement, given the defendants’ evidence of an independent creative process and the use of common Bollywood tropes. The balance of convenience was deemed to favor the defendants, as an injunction would disrupt the film’s commercial exploitation, while the plaintiff’s potential harm could be compensated through damages if his claim succeeded. The public interest in accessing the film further tilted the decision against granting relief.
### Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Interim Application (L) No. 22738 of 2023, refusing to grant the interim injunction sought by the plaintiff, Ashim Kumar Bagchi. The court allowed the defendants, including Balaji Telefilms Ltd., to continue exploiting "DREAM GIRL -2" pending the final disposal of Commercial IP Suit No. 322 of 2023. The matter was directed to proceed to trial for a comprehensive adjudication of the copyright infringement claim, with the plaintiff retaining the right to seek damages or other reliefs if successful.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment clarifies that for an interim injunction in a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must demonstrate a strong prima facie case of substantial similarity and access to the copyrighted work, beyond mere thematic parallels. It establishes that the balance of convenience and public interest can outweigh preliminary claims, particularly when the defendant provides evidence of independent creation. The decision reinforces the high threshold for interim relief in entertainment disputes under the Copyright Act, 1957, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence at the interlocutory stage.
### Case Details
Case Title: Ashim Kumar Bagchi vs Balaji Telefilms Ltd. and Ors.
Date of Order: 06 August, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 22738 of 2023 in Commercial IP Suit No. 322 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:12293
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division
Name of Judge: R.I. Chagla
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
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Copyright Infringement in Cinema: The "Dream Girl -2" Case Study
2. Interim Injunctions in IP Disputes: Insights from Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms
3. Substantial Similarity and Access: Analyzing the Bombay High Court Ruling
4. Balancing Creator Rights and Public Interest: The "Dream Girl -2" Judgment
5. Independent Creation vs. Copyright Claims: Lessons from Ashim Kumar Bagchi
6. Threshold for Interim Relief in Copyright Law: The Balaji Telefilms Case
7. Cinematic Tropes and Copyright: The Bombay High Court’s Approach in 2025
8. Protecting Original Scripts: Judicial Perspective in the "Dream Girl -2" Dispute
