Mumbai, Dec 4: The Bombay High Court rejected Bollywood producer Ramesh Sippy's plea seeking a stay on the release of Sholay's 3D version made by his nephew Sasha over a copyright dispute.
In a notice of motion on his suit against Sasha and others, Sippy had recently filed an appeal before a division bench against the judgement of Justice Kathawala who had earlier rejected Sippy's petition on the same issue.
Upholding the single bench's judgement here today, a division bench of Justices S F Vajifdar and G S Patel refused to stay the production and release of the movie's 3D version.
Ramesh Sippy, who had directed the original movie 'Sholay', is in dispute with his nephew Sasha over the rights of the film which was released in 1975.
Sasha, who is the son of Ramesh Sippy's brother Vijay Sippy, had recently announced making a 3D version of the movie which is to be distributed by Jayantilal Gada.
Ramesh Sippy had moved the single bench against this, which rejected his plea in April.
However, Ramesh Sippy appealed against its order recently, which was upheld by a division bench today.
Lawyers of Sasha and other respondents argued Sippy had no rights over the movie and hence he could not oppose the production and release of Sholay's 3D version.
Sasha and other members of the Sippy family contended they were associated with Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd formed in 2000.
They said Ramesh Sippy never made any copyright claims when their company had dealt with and commercially exploited Sholay's rights several times earlier.
They also questioned why he raised objections only in this case, arguing that all directors of the movie have either retired or died, while the rights of the movie were vested in Sippy Films Pvt Ltd.
Sasha and others contended that in the year 2000, Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd came into being and rights of the movie were transferred to this company by Sippy Films Pvt Ltd through a gift deed.
Ramesh Sippy resigned as director of Sippy Films three months before the movie was released and he had nothing to do with the company, they said.
Comments
Add new comment