Delhi HC declines to stay release of ‘Chalo Dilli’
Tennis star Mahesh Bhupathi's debut Bollywood movie 'Chalo Dilli', starring his wife Lara Dutta, on Tuesday got a relief from the Delhi High Court which declined to stay its release on April 29 for alleged violation of copyrights of a song in it.delhi Updated: Apr 26, 2011 23:34 IST
Tennis star Mahesh Bhupathi's debut Bollywood movie 'Chalo Dilli', starring his wife Lara Dutta, on Tuesday
got a relief from the Delhi High Court which declined to stay its release on April 29 for alleged violation of copyrights of a song in it.
Music composer Anandji Virji Shah's counsel had approached the court alleging that the filmmaker has violated the copyrights by making a remix of his popular song "Laila oh laila" from 1980's popular Hindi the film 'Qurbani'.
Lara Dutta, who recently tied knot with Mahesh, and actor Vinay Pathak starrer movie is scheduled to be released on Friday.
However, Justice Manmohan Singh issued a notice to the director and producer of the movie and sought their response by May 12.
Filing a civil suit, Anandji, who along with brother Kalyanji, formed the banner 'Kalyanji-Anandji' claimed the song 'Laila oh laila' was taken from Qurbani, directed by Firoz Khan, and sought an order restraining the filmmakers from issuing any audio CD or DVD with the remix of the song.
Seeking damages of R1 crore from the EROS International Media, the producer "Chalo Dilli", Anandji said that before making the remix of the song, the filmmakers failed to obtain his permission and also claimed he was entitled to receive royalty for the remix of the song.
"It is shocking to find that the music composition contained in the song 'Laila o laila' in the film Chalo Dilliis slavish and a distorted version", the composer said.
"A separate licence/permission would be necessary from plaintiff (Anandji) in the absence of which there would be an infringement of Copyrights Act", it was said in the civil suit.
Declining to grant a stay on the release of the movie and CD or DVD, the court said "permission is required only when you have a right".
The court fixed May 12 as the next date of hearing in the civil case.