Search results
Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh. 1. The plaintiff - Ramesh Sippy has filed the above suit claiming to be the author and first owner of the copyright and also to the Author's Special Rights in the film titled “Sholay” (“the said film Sholay”) and other four films viz. (i) Seeta aur Geeta, (ii) Saagar, (iii) Shaan and (iv) Andaz (“the said ...
- 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 Petitioner(s) VERSUS. SHAAN RANJEET UTTAMSINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment and. prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 02/01/2014 This Petition was mentioned today.
- 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.SHAAN RANJEET UTTAMSINGH AND ORS. LAWS(BOM)-2013-12-221 HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. Decided on December 03,2013 RAMESH SIPPY Appellant. VERSUS ...
Apr 1, 2013 · Notice of Motion No. 406 of 2013 in Suit No. 166 of 2013. Case: Ramesh Sippy Vs Shaan Ranjeet Uttamsingh and others. High Court of Bombay (India)
People also ask
What is the Appeal V Shaan Ranjeet uttams?
How did the sphere of intellectual property develop in Ramesh Sippy V Shaan Ranjeet Uttam Singh?
Who is defendant 2 - Sameer Ranjeet Uttamsingh?
Aug 4, 2015 · Shaan Ranjeet Uttam Singh and Ors. when the High Court laid down two important principles. Firstly, the conduct of the party is relevant when copyright is asserted after a long duration from the work being first created. Secondly, the authorship of a work comes into existence only upon completion of the work.
