HC restrains trust in Dada Kondke’s name from assigning his film rights

The Bombay high court recently restrained a trust in the name of Marathi actor-filmmaker Dada Kondke from offering his films to any party till it decided a commercial intellectual property suit. The suit has been filed by Everest Entertainment Ltd, a company which claims that it has secured the film rights from Manik Padmakar More, an heir of Kondke

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently restrained a trust in the name of Marathi actor-filmmaker Dada Kondke from offering his films to any party till it decided a commercial intellectual property suit. The suit has been filed by Everest Entertainment Ltd, a company which claims that it has secured the film rights from Manik Padmakar More, an heir of Kondke.

26 July 1989 - Dada Kondke comedian - HT Photo by Chandru Mirchnadani.

The HC, while granting interim relief to the company, restrained the trust from dealing in the films till further orders. It also restrained Bombay Film Enterprises Private Limited and the National Film Development Corporation from handing over any material of the 12 films to the Shahir Dada Kondke Pratishthan, its trustees or anyone other than Everest.

On May 3, Justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the interim application of Everest, was informed by advocates Virag Tulzapurkar and Hiren Kamod that Everest became the assignee of the film’s copyrights based on an assignment deed dated August 12, 2022, which was executed by More. More had got the rights on the basis of Kondke’s will executed on January 2, 1998. The film-maker died two months later.

Everest submitted that as it had rights based on the 2022 deed, the trust could not claim any rights. However, advocate A A Garge opposed Everest’s claim and said that a proper reading of the will showed that the rights of the films were bequeathed to the trust, and hence More should not have assigned them to Everest. In view of this, he requested the court not to grant any urgent reliefs sought by Everest.

After hearing the submissions, the bench noted in its order, “The plaintiff has indeed made out a prima facie case in its favour, as a clause of the said will deed appears to indicate that rights in the films, in which the original owner of the copyright could assert his rights, were bequeathed to defendant More. The will deed specifically bequeathed immovable properties in favour of the trust, which was also created under the said document.”

The bench then held that the trustees could not sustain their claim of More not having any rights in the films or that these were limited to making copies of the negatives. “If limited ad-interim reliefs are not granted, there is every possibility of further complications arising in the matter and the plaintiff suffering grave and irreparable loss,” said the bench.

The next hearing is scheduled on July 4.