Delhi High Court Imposes Restrictions on Bohemia Amid Contract Dispute with Saga Music

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining Punjabi rapper Bohemia, also known as Roger David, from collaborating with any music label other than Saga Music. This legal development stems from a lawsuit filed by Saga Music against Bohemia, accusing him of violating their contract.

According to court documents, Bohemia had entered into an exclusive talent engagement agreement with Saga Music in December 2019, committing to work solely with them for a duration of 45 months. The agreement explicitly stated that Saga Music would own all intellectual property rights to Bohemia’s songs, videos, and performances. Moreover, Bohemia was not permitted to collaborate with any other artist or label without obtaining prior written consent from Saga.

Saga Music alleged that Bohemia breached the agreement by failing to produce any songs for them and continuing with musical tours. Additionally, Bohemia released songs in collaboration with other artists on his YouTube channel, a violation of the exclusivity clause in the contract.

The court, after considering Saga Music’s claims, issued an ex parte ad interim order, effective until the next hearing scheduled for February 23. This order prohibits Bohemia from creating music videos, songs, or engaging in public performances without obtaining prior written permission from Saga Music. It also prohibits Bohemia and his associates from making any defamatory posts about Saga Music on social media.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal represented Saga Music in the legal proceedings, highlighting the potential irreparable harm Saga Music could face if an interim order was not granted.

In summary, the Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a temporary measure to safeguard Saga Music’s interests amid Bohemia’s alleged contract violations. The court has indicated its initial belief in the merits of Saga Music’s case, and the interim order is intended to prevent further harm to the label until a thorough examination occurs during the next hearing on February 23.

Copyright Dispute: Delhi High Court Defends Creative Freedom for ‘Shamshera’ OTT Release

by News

In a recent legal battle, the Delhi High Court made a significant ruling by dismissing filmmaker Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar’s plea to temporarily halt the streaming of the movie “Shamshera” on Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms. Bhullar alleged that the film’s plot and theme closely resembled his work, ‘Kabu Na Chhadein Khet,’ and sought an interim order to prevent its streaming. The court’s decision sheds light on the complex intersection of creative rights, shared themes in Bollywood, and the challenging task of determining copyright infringement.

The heart of Bhullar’s claim lies in his assertion that “Shamshera” copied his copyrighted work, leading to a legal battle against Yash Raj Films and others involved in the film’s production. He contended that elements of his creation, including a period drama set in the 18th century and a father-son story with specific thematic elements, were imitated in “Shamshera.” Bhullar’s legal pursuit sought to establish that his work was being unfairly replicated, warranting an injunction against the film’s telecast on OTT platforms.

However, the court, led by Justice Jyoti Singh, delivered a nuanced judgment, rejecting Bhullar’s plea based on several critical considerations. The court’s primary argument rested on the notion that certain themes, such as period dramas and father-son narratives, are prevalent and recurring in Bollywood. In doing so, the court rejected the idea of granting a monopoly over these common elements, asserting that doing so would go against established legal principles.

The court’s reasoning extended beyond the specifics of Bhullar’s case, delving into the broader landscape of creativity within the Indian film industry. It emphasized that granting exclusive rights over widely used themes would stifle creativity and innovation, as such themes are integral to the storytelling fabric of Bollywood. The decision underscored the need to balance creative expression with the industry’s shared cultural and thematic elements.

Critical to the court’s decision was its analysis of the alleged similarities between Bhullar’s script and the film “Shamshera.” The court watched the movie, examined Bhullar’s script, and identified dissimilarities that outweighed the asserted similarities. Elements such as North Indian locations, burning oil, water, birds, stars for navigation, secret underwater tunnels, horses, ghaghra, and certain scenes were recognized as common and non-unique to Bhullar’s work. The judgment stressed that these elements have been utilized in movies for a considerable time and lack the necessary uniqueness to warrant copyright protection.

The court specifically addressed Bhullar’s claim of a unique father-son theme spanning two generations, emphasizing that such themes are pervasive in Bollywood. It noted that the character dynamics in “Shamshera” were distinct from Bhullar’s script, and the alleged similarities were insufficient to presume copyright infringement. The decision thus rejected Bhullar’s argument that the lead characters’ transformation from initially negative to positive was a unique aspect that had been copied.

The ruling further highlighted the court’s reluctance to grant an interim injunction, emphasizing that Bhullar had not established a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court assessed that no irreparable loss would be caused to Bhullar if the film continued to be telecast on OTT platforms. The balance of convenience, according to the court, also favored Yash Raj Films.

While the court’s decision was focused on the specific case at hand, it carries broader implications for the Indian film industry. By rejecting the idea of a monopoly over common themes, the court encourages a more open and collaborative creative environment. It acknowledges that certain elements are intrinsic to Bollywood storytelling and should remain accessible to all creators.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s rejection of Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar’s plea against the streaming of “Shamshera” marks a crucial moment in the legal discourse surrounding copyright and creative expression in Bollywood. The decision not only safeguards the industry’s creative vitality but also sets a precedent for future cases involving shared themes and narrative elements. As the main suit is scheduled for January 16, 2024, the court’s nuanced stance on copyright and common themes will likely continue to shape the trajectory of creative rights in the Indian film landscape.

Delhi High Court Puts Hold on Providing FIR Copy to Accused Neelam Azad in Parliament Security Breach Case

by News

In the ongoing Parliament Security Breach case, the Delhi High Court has stepped in to pause a trial court’s decision to give Neelam Azad, one of the accused individuals, a copy of the First Information Report (FIR). The High Court, in its intervention, emphasized that the FIR contains sensitive information and highlighted a crucial guideline from the Supreme Court. According to this directive, in cases involving sensitive details, the accused should first request the FIR copy from the Police Commissioner. The Commissioner is then expected to form a three-member committee to decide whether it’s appropriate to provide the FIR to the accused or not.

The stay order ensures that proper procedures are followed, especially in cases with delicate information. The Supreme Court’s guidelines aim to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of investigations. By requiring the accused to go through the Police Commissioner first, it adds an extra layer of scrutiny before handing over sensitive documents.

The Delhi High Court’s intervention comes after a trial court, on December 21, directed the Delhi Police to furnish a copy of the FIR to Neelam Azad. Despite strong opposition from the Delhi Police’s Special Public Prosecutor Akhand Pratap Singh, the trial court insisted on providing the FIR to the accused.

However, the High Court has now stayed the execution of the trial court’s order, urging compliance with the established procedures in such high-profile and sensitive cases. This ensures that the release of information aligns with legal standards and safeguards the ongoing investigation. The case is scheduled for further consideration on January 4, 2024, allowing the High Court to thoroughly assess the situation and make informed decisions based on legal protocols.

Delhi High Court Rejects Habeas Corpus Plea in Vivo Money Laundering Case

by News

The Delhi High Court has dismissed Habeas Corpus petitions filed by three individuals accused in a money laundering case involving Chinese smartphone manufacturer Vivo. The accused claimed illegal detention, arguing that there was no court order extending their custody beyond December 7, 2023. However, the court, after examining the facts, concluded that the accused were in lawful judicial custody.

The case against Vivo, initiated by the Delhi Police in 2021, alleges the use of shell companies to remit money outside India between 2014 and 2021. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed its chargesheet in December, and the three accused were among those arrested in October.

The accused contended that their detention in Tihar jail was illegal after December 7, as there was no court order extending their judicial custody. The court found no break in their custody, noting they were unable to appear in court on December 7, leading to the issuance of production warrants for the next hearing on December 13.

The Delhi Police’s case against Vivo centers on accusations of using shell companies for money remittance outside India between 2014 and 2021. The ED filed its chargesheet earlier this month. The three accused were arrested in October, initially in ED custody, which later transitioned to judicial custody.

The accused argued that their judicial custody was last extended till December 7 based on an ED application on October 30. They claimed that their continued detention beyond this date lacked a judicial order, violating Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In response, the ED explained that a chargesheet was filed on December 6, and although the accused were not physically brought before the trial court on December 7, their legal representatives were present, and no objections were raised regarding the production warrants.

The court agreed with the ED, emphasizing that even if the accused were not physically present, their continuous custody remained lawful, especially as no objections were raised. The court highlighted that if the accused were not issued production warrants the same day, the situation might be different.

The Delhi High Court’s decision affirms the lawful judicial custody of the accused individuals in the Vivo money laundering case, dismissing their plea for Habeas Corpus. This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to proper legal procedures and ensures clarity regarding the accused’s custodial status amid procedural intricacies.

Delhi High Court Calls for Government and Rapido’s Response in Making App-Based Cabs Disability-Friendly

by News

The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step towards enhancing the accessibility of app-based cab aggregator services for individuals with disabilities. In response to a plea filed by disability rights activist Amar Jain and visually impaired banker Dipto Ghosh Chaudhary, the court has issued notices to both the Central government and ride-hailing service Rapido.

The plea underscores the challenges faced by disabled individuals, asserting that not only Rapido but other cab aggregators also lack adequate systems to meet the accessibility needs of this demographic. The incident involving Dipto Ghosh Chaudhary being denied a ride by a Rapido driver based on his disability is highlighted as a violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

According to the RPwD Act, all service providers, both public and private, are legally obligated to ensure that their digital platforms are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. The petitioners argue that the government, specifically the Central government, has failed to implement a mandate to guarantee digital accessibility for persons with disabilities in the realm of cab aggregator services.

The plea contends that this failure directly contradicts Section 41(1)(b) of the RPwD Act, which mandates the government to take suitable measures to provide access to all modes of transport for individuals with disabilities. The case is scheduled for the next hearing on December 20, 2024.

In seeking redress, the petitioners have urged the court to direct the Central government to establish a robust legal mandate and operational guidance for all app-based aggregators. The objective is to ensure that the digital platforms and operational processes of these services become more disability-friendly. Additionally, the plea calls for imposing fines on Rapido for its alleged failure to make its app accessible to persons with disabilities.

The outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent for making transportation services more inclusive and accessible for people with disabilities in India.

Delhi High Court Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Due to Accused’s Mental Condition

by News

The Delhi High Court has quashed a case of sexual harassment and stalking against an individual due to concerns about his mental condition. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made this ruling based on a report from a medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS).

In November 2021, the Delhi Police had charged the man under Section 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (sexual harassment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). These charges stemmed from allegations made by a sixth-grade student who claimed the man had touched her inappropriately and followed her.

The defendant’s legal counsel argued for the case to be quashed, explaining that the accused had bipolar disorder and was not in control of his actions during the incident. The AIIMS medical board confirmed the accused’s mental health condition, diagnosing him with psychosis NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) along with Borderline Intellectual ability. The report also noted his need for regular medical care and supervision.

Earlier, in April, the Court had granted the accused interim bail and directed AIIMS doctors to assess his condition. Taking the medical report into consideration, as well as the victim’s father’s consent to drop the case, the Court decided to quash the FIR and all related proceedings.

This case highlights the importance of considering an individual’s mental condition and capacity when assessing their actions in legal matters. It underscores the significance of a comprehensive evaluation of a person’s mental state in cases that involve potential legal consequences.

Delhi High Court Restrains Sale of ‘Good Time’ Cookies Amid Packaging Dispute

by News

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction to prevent the production and sale of butter cookies under the name ‘Good Time.’ This decision came after Britannia Industries Limited filed a complaint, alleging that the packaging of ‘Good Time’ cookies was nearly identical to Britannia’s popular ‘Good Day’ and ‘Good Day Butter Cookies.’

Justice Prathiba M Singh, who presided over the case, reasoned that ‘Good Day’ cookies and their packaging had gained significant recognition and goodwill in the market. Butter cookies like these are widely consumed by a diverse demographic, including children, literate individuals, and those in urban and rural areas. The packaging and brand of Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ have become widely recognized, making it crucial to protect against any potential consumer confusion.

The Court concluded that the packaging of ‘Good Time’ cookies appeared to be a deliberate imitation of Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ packaging. This intentional copying raised concerns about potential trademark infringement and passing off, as consumers could easily mistake the two products due to their packaging similarities.

As a result, the Court issued an interim order, restraining Amar Biscuit Pvt. Ltd., the company producing ‘Good Time’ cookies, from manufacturing, selling, or offering these butter cookies under the ‘Good Time’ name or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to Britannia’s ‘Good Day’ mark. The defendants were also instructed to remove any online listings of these infringing products within 48 hours.

Britannia further argued that the packaging of ‘Good Day Butter Cookies’ was not merely a trademark label but also an artistic work protected by copyright. They learned about the imitation through a consumer post on social media.

The Court considered the potential harm to Britannia if the interim injunction were not granted and found that Britannia could suffer irreparable losses. The similarity in packaging and branding could lead to brand dilution and market confusion, impacting Britannia’s goodwill and consumer trust.

In addition to the injunction, the Court ordered Amar Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. to provide a stock statement detailing all materials featuring the contested mark and packaging. This case demonstrates the importance of protecting trademarks, branding, and consumer trust in the marketplace, particularly when similar products with similar packaging risk causing confusion among consumers.

Kapil Dev’s PIL in Delhi High Court Seeks Stricter Animal Welfare Laws

by News

Legendary Indian cricketer Kapil Dev, along with his wife Romi Dev and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court seeking stricter laws against cruelty to animals. The PIL challenges certain provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioners argue that Sections 11(1), 11(3)(b), and 11(3)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, along with Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, are unconstitutional. Section 11 of the Act deals with cruelty to animals and prescribes fines and imprisonment for offenses. The petitioners assert that these penalties are insufficient and lack a deterrent effect to address the brutality and crimes committed against animals in India.

Additionally, the PIL contends that Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, which deal with offenses related to causing harm or killing animals, create an unreasonable classification. These sections differentiate between offenses based on the commercial and utility value of the animal, leading to varying penalties for the same offense, depending on the value of the animal. This classification is deemed arbitrary and unreasonable.

Kapil Dev and the other petitioners seek amendments to these provisions to ensure stricter and more appropriate penalties for those found guilty of cruelty to animals. They emphasize that the prevailing penalties trivialize the lives of animals and do not adequately address the severity of the offenses committed against them.

In response to the PIL, the Delhi High Court has issued notices to several authorities, including the Central government, the Animal Welfare Board, the Delhi government, and Delhi Police. These authorities are required to file their responses within four weeks, and the matter is scheduled for the next hearing on December 19.

The PIL brought forward by Kapil Dev and others highlights their commitment to animal welfare and their efforts to strengthen India’s legal framework against cruelty to animals. They aim to protect the rights and well-being of animals, promoting a more humane society where animals are treated with greater compassion and care.

As the case progresses, it may prompt changes in the legal landscape surrounding animal rights and cruelty prevention in India. The responses of the authorities involved will shed light on the potential for legal reforms in this critical area.

Delhi High Court Rejects Tata’s Plea for Injunction Against Puro Wellness Salt Ad

by News

The Delhi High Court has declined to grant an interim injunction against a commercial aired by Puro Wellness for its pink-colored rock salt, marketed as “Puro Healthy Salt,” in a case brought by Tata Sons Private Limited. Tata alleged that the Puro salt advertisement disparaged white salt but failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction, according to Justice C Hari Shankar.

The Court noted that the commercial did not explicitly make any derogatory comments about white salt. At most, the advertisement expressed a preference for Puro’s salt, claiming it to be a healthy alternative to common salt without making any negative remarks about white salt’s healthiness. The Court found it highly debatable whether the advertisement necessarily implied that white salt was unhealthy.

Tata argued that Puro could not depict or advertise its salt as “healthy” since it would violate Food Safety Regulations. However, the Court clarified that making one’s product seem superior to others through comparative advertising was permissible. The Court stated that the competitor’s right was limited to ensuring that their product was not disparaged and that rivals did not make false or misleading claims without supporting quantitative or qualitative data.

In the Court’s view, Puro’s advertisement fell within the bounds of acceptable comparative advertising. It noted that if such a seemingly innocuous commercial were to be injuncted, the concept of comparative advertising would be rendered moot.

The refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief leaves Puro Wellness free to continue airing its advertisement, emphasizing the importance of truthful, non-disparaging comparative advertising in the marketplace. This case underscores that competitors should focus on ensuring their products are not disparaged rather than attempting to control their rivals’ advertising tactics.

Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rajiv Nayar, along with a team of lawyers, represented Tata Sons in the case. On the other side, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal and his team of lawyers from Khaitan & Co represented Puro Wellness.

This ruling underscores the importance of clear and truthful comparative advertising practices, while also respecting the freedom of companies to market their products in a competitive marketplace.

Delhi High Court’s Landmark Move: Live-Streaming of Chief Justice’s Court Begins on October 11

by News

Starting from October 11, the Delhi High Court will introduce live-streaming of its proceedings, commencing with cases in the Chief Justice’s court. This initiative aims to enhance access to justice and will be implemented on a case-by-case basis following the court’s directions.

The live-streaming can be accessed through the Delhi High Court’s official website under the “LIVE STREAMING” section. However, it’s important to note that the live-streamed and archived content is intended for informational purposes and should not be considered an official court record.

The court has explicitly stated that only authorized individuals or entities are permitted to record, share, or disseminate the live-streamed proceedings or archival data. This restriction applies to print and electronic media as well as social media platforms.

Additionally, the Delhi High Court emphasizes its transition to paperless e-courts, where all court activities, including video conferences and hybrid hearings, are conducted electronically through the Online c-Filing System.

Furthermore, the live streaming will initially cover Court No. 1, which includes Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Hon’ble the Chief Justice, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula. Proceedings before Court No. 39 will also be live-streamed in the near future.