In family row, HC refuses relief to Sippy on Sholay's 3-D mode
The Bombay High Court has rejected the plea of Bollywood producer Ramesh Sippy which sought a stay on production and release of Hindi blockbuster Sholay's 3-D version being made by his nephew Sasha.bollywood Updated: Apr 02, 2013 18:49 IST
The Bombay High Court has rejected the plea of Bollywood producer Ramesh Sippy which sought a stay on production and release of Hindi blockbuster Sholay's 3-D version being made by his nephew Sasha.
Sippy, the director of Sholay, is in dispute with Sasha over the rights of the film which was released in 1975 and created many records.
Sasha, son of Sippy's brother Vijay, had recently announced making 3-D version of the film to be distributed by Jayantilal Gada.
Being aggrieved, Sippy moved the High Court.
Hearing Sippy's petition, Justice S J Kathawala yesterday refused to grant any relief saying his court was not inclined to give a stay on production and release of the 3-D version at this stage.
The judge said that first he would frame preliminary issues raised by Sasha and his associates.
Lawyers of Sasha, Birendra Saraf and Archit Jaykar, argued that Sippy did not have any rights over the movie. Hence, he should not oppose the production and release of Sholay's 3-D version.
Sasha and other members of the Sippy family claim to be associated with Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd, which was formed in 2000.
An affidavit filed by this company said it had dealt with and commercially exploited the rights of Sholay several times earlier but never before had Sippy made any claim on copyrights.
Then, why now he was objecting?
The affidavit further said that all the directors of the film had either retired or died and the rights of Sholay were vested in Sippy Films Pvt Ltd.
However, in 2000, Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt Ltd came into being and rights of the film were transferred to this company by Sippy Films Pvt Ltd through a gift deed, the affidavit said.
Ramesh Sippy resigned as director of Sippy Films three months before the film was released and he had nothing to do with the company, the affidavit further said.