English | मराठी 

‘Krrish 3′ to release on Friday as HC refused the complaint

Kkrish 3

The petition was filed by Uday Singh Rajput claiming himself as the original author and demanded the compensation from the producers

Kkrish 3Mumbai: The decks are finally cleared for the release of Bollywood sci-fi film ‘Krrish-3′ starring Hrithik Roshan on November 1, with the Bombay High Court today refusing to grant relief to a writer who alleged copyright violation of the film’s script.

In his petition, plaintiff Uday Singh Rajput claimed he was the original author of the film’s story and demanded compensation of Rs 2 crore from producer Rakesh Roshan.

However, Justice S J Kathalwala refused to grant relief saying, “this is an incorrect and dishonest plaint.He is not entitled to stop the release of the film as he is dishonest to the court”.

In the suit, the verification clause was left blank which the Judge said was not right and raised doubts whether the contents were read out and explained to the petitioner.

Interestingly, the facts mentioned in the suit were denied by the plaintiff orally in the court today.

Rajput, a resident of Sagar district in Madhya Pradesh, claimed in his suit that he had met Roshan in 2008 with the script and was promised Rs two crore payment if his story was to be used in making Krrish-3.

The Judge asked Rajput to step into witness box and questioned him when he had met Roshan. To this, Rajput replied that he had never met Roshan but had met his colleague in 2008, much to the surprise of the court.

Rajput further said he had showed the script to Roshan’s colleague who suggested some changes and asked him to register the script with the film writer’s association and then mail it to him. Accordingly, the script was mailed to Roshan’s office, Rajput told the court.

When Justice Kathawala asked Rajput if he was in a position to produce the original receipt of the post office showing that the script was mailed to Roshan, he replied that he had lost it.

Counsel for Roshan, Ravi Kadam, argued that his client was not in India during the period when the plaintiff claimed he met the producer with his script.


Leave a Reply