Search results
Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh. Smart Summary (Beta) Facts. The plaintiff, Ramesh Sippy, has filed a suit claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright and Author's Special Rights in the film titled "Sholay" ("the said film Sholay") and four other films. Issue.
- Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd V. Ajit Sippy
The first subscribers and signatories to the Memorandum and...
- Technip Sa V. Sms Holding
Co-Appellant: Coflexip, also incorporated in France...
- Sholay Media & Entertainment Pvt. Ltd V. Ajit Sippy
Oct 24, 2021 · Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh & Ors., the Bombay High Court held that both those who are creative (authors of literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work) or those who finance creativity (sound recording and cinematography) including companies and partnership firms, etc are authors under the statute. In furtherance, it noted that (para 47) “…
- Lokesh Vyas
Jan 2, 2014 · Ramesh Sippy vs Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh . on 2 January, 2014. Warning on translation. Get this document in PDF. Print it on a file/printer. Download Court Copy. [Cites 0, Cited by 3] Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query ( Query Alert Service ).
- Facts
- Issues
- Holding
- Rationale
The appellant, a film director, is concerned about the imminent release of the 3-D version of the film "Sholay."The appellant claims ownership of the copyright in "Sholay," while SMEPL also claims to own the copyright.The appellant's father, a well-known director and producer of Hindi films, was not a partner in the partnership firm that financed "Sholay."The appellant retired from the partnership firm a few months before the release of "Sholay" in 1975.1. Whether the appellant has established ownership of the copyright in the film "Sholay." 2. Whether the appellant's claim of unawareness of SMEPL's copyright ownership is valid. 3. Whether the appellant's lawsuit is maintainable after withdrawing a previous suit without obtaining liberty to file a fresh suit.
The court affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for copyright ownership in "Sholay" and that the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant's case lacked bona fides and did not deserve equi...
The appellant's retirement from the partnership firm before the completion of "Sholay" precluded him from acquiring copyright in the film.The court acknowledged the possibility of a juristic entity like a firm or company owning copyright and found the appellant's claim unsubstantiated.The court agreed with the Single Judge that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case for copyright ownership.The court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, as the appellant failed to establish ownership of the copyright or show that the balance of convenience favored him.Apr 1, 2013 · Defendant No. 1 is the son of the Plaintiff's late sister (Soni Uttamsingh) and is one of the Directors of Defendant No. 5 which claims to be the owner of the copyright in the said film Sholay.
- High Court of Bombay (India)
- S. J. Kathawalla, J.
- April 01, 2013
He has also directed other Hindi films including Sagar, Shaan, Seeta aur Geeta and Andaaz. In his Suit, the appellant claims to be the "author" of and the "first owner of copyright" in these films. He also claims to be entitled to "Author's Special Rights" in these films.
Feb 3, 2006 · Shaan Ranjit Uttamsingh and Sameer, were arrested on Wednesday for assaulting a businessman's son inside the pub.
