http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... attle.htmlSippy grandson wins the Sholay court battlePraveen Kumar
New Delhi, January 19, 2010
This is as riveting a drama as Bollywood's cult classic Sholay. But the scene of action is a courtroom, not Ramgarh.
And the protagonists are not Gabbar, Veeru and Jai, but family members of the man who produced Hindi cinema's first - and to date the best - 'curry eastern'. For the past few years, the late G. P. Sippy's grandson Sascha has been involved in a legal fight with his uncle Ajit and grandmother Mohini for the ownership of Sholay.
Ten days ago, Sascha won the first battle when the Delhi High Court ruled that he would hold exclusive rights over the 1975 blockbuster till the time the original suit filed in this connection was disposed of.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher passed the interim order on January 8 on an application filed by the Zee Telefilms Ltd.
Zee had challenged the exclusive rights of Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd (SMEPL), headed by Sascha, over the movie.
The first case was filed in 2006 by Sascha, who went to court claiming ownership of Sholay. He moved the Delhi High Court against Ajit and Mohini for selling the telecast rights of Sholay and some other films produced by Sippy to Zee Telefilms Ltd. He claimed he owned the copyrights of the films.
It all began in 2003 when SMEPL signed two contracts with Zee for the telecast of Sholay and 31 other films produced by Sippy.
According to the agreement, Zee paid Rs 1.15 crore for 10 telecasts of Sholay and Rs 1.85 crore for the other films.
A dispute arose when Zee did not respond to SMEPL's letters asking how many times the movie had been shown on TV, as the agreement stipulated.
On October 29, 2007, SMEPL issued a notice to Zee asking it to stop the films' screening. It intimated Zee that it was terminating the contract.
But Zee continued to telecast the films and claimed it had entered into an agreement with Ajit and Mohini for multiple telecast rights of Sholay and the other films.
SMEPL then filed an application before the court alleging that the defendants had infringed its copyright and trademark over Sholay and the other 31 films by broadcasting them in breach of the 2003 contracts.
Zee, however, claimed it was Ajit and Mohini who held the rights of the films. To support its contention, it submitted a letter, issued by Sippy in December 2004, which said all overseas rights of the films had been assigned to Sippy Films by an agreement dated June 18, 2003. Sippy Films was owned by Ajit and Mohini.
However, by an interim ex parte order dated August 22, 2008, the defendants were restrained from broadcasting the films.
SMEPL's counsel Jagdish Sagar told the court that Sippy Films did indeed hold the original rights of Sholay and the other films but the firm's constitution had later changed and Ajit had quit as a partner.
"In 1997, Sippy Films Private Ltd, a firm owned by Shaan Uttam Singh (son of Sippy's daughter Sunita), was admitted as a partner with Sippy Films. On September 11, 1997, Mohini retired from the firm, leaving only two partners, Uttam and Vijay Sippy (Sascha's father). Vijay died on April 17, 1998, which resulted in the dissolution of Sippy Films. Uttam, who was left the only owner, executed all the rights of the films to SMEPL headed by Sascha," Sagar submitted before the court.
The court upheld the validity of this agreement between Sascha and his cousin Uttam under the Copyright Act.
Reacting to the court directive, Sascha said: "We are happy with the high court order. We have been fighting this case for several years and have finally received an order in our favour."