HC restrains Prakash Mehra’s daughter-in-law, grandson from dealing with rights in 11 films

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has restrained filmmaker Prakash Mehra’s daughter-in-law Rashi Mehra and grandson Adai Mehra from transferring, alienating or creating third-party rights in 11 films produced by the late filmmaker, including Amitabh Bachchan-starrer hits such as Zanjeer, Muqaddar Ka Sikandar and Sharabi

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has restrained filmmaker Prakash Mehra’s daughter-in-law Rashi Mehra and grandson Adai Mehra from transferring, alienating or creating third-party rights in 11 films produced by the late filmmaker, including Amitabh Bachchan-starrer hits such as Zanjeer, Muqaddar Ka Sikandar and Sharabi.

A single-judge bench of Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla also restrained the mother-son duo — wife and son of Mehra’s deceased son Amit — from dealing with or creating third-party rights in three rooms at Kings International Hotel in Juhu, which form part of the late filmmaker’s estate.

The court passed the order on a plea filed by Mehra’s sons Puneet and Sumeet, who alleged that Rashi and Adai had violated a 2019 status quo order passed by the high court concerning their father’s estate.

Puneet and Sumeet claimed that the high court had passed a preliminary decree holding that each of them was entitled to a one-third share in the rights to the 11 films. They alleged that following Amit’s death, Rashi had attempted to unilaterally deal with and alienate some of the movie rights by negotiating with Zee TV for their sale. They also claimed she had exchanged memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with another company for selling the rights.

The court, however, held that Rashi’s negotiations with Zee TV and exchange of MoUs, in the absence of any further action to enter into agreements, could not by themselves be considered a threat to Puneet and Sumeet’s rights. It therefore refused to grant a blanket injunction against the mother-son duo.

The court, however, restrained Rashi and Adai from transferring or alienating the movie rights, noting that Puneet and Sumeet together held a two-thirds share in the films and that their interests required protection.

“In my view, the interests of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced if an injunction is granted against the Plaintiffs (mother-son duo) from transferring or alienating the movie rights without the permission of this Court,” Justice Pooniwalla said.

The court clarified that despite the existing status quo order, if Rashi and Adai intend to transfer their movie rights, they “must do so with the permission of this Court.”

Puneet and Sumeet also told the court that their father owned Rooms 805 and 806 at Kings International Hotel, which were let out to guests and generated regular income for the family through the hotel operator.

They alleged that Rashi and Adai had created a third room, Room 812, by carving out portions of the two rooms. According to them, this had not been disclosed in the affidavits filed before the high court but came to light in the report of a valuer appointed by the court. They consequently sought the appointment of a Court Receiver for the rooms.

The mother-son duo opposed the plea, contending that Room 812 had existed well before Amit Mehra’s death in February 2015. They also argued that the cumulative area of the hotel rooms had been disclosed in their suit and remained unchanged at 945 sq ft.

The court accepted their contention that the third room existed before they took over the hotel rooms and declined to appoint a Court Receiver. It noted that the creation of the third room did not diminish the late filmmaker’s estate as the total area of the rooms remained unchanged.

The court, however, directed Rashi and Adai to maintain accounts of the income generated from the hotel rooms.