Filing for an injunction days before a film’s release has been a reliable tactic — the release date creates pressure no producer can ignore. In Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios, Justice G.S. Patel decided the tactic had run its course, and attached a price to it.
The facts
The plaintiff, Dashrath B. Rathod, a Bhojpuri actor and producer, sued the production house behind the Bollywood film “Phillauri”, alleging it had copied the plot of “Mangal Phera” — a trilingual film released in Bhojpuri, Gujarati and Nepali in 2013.
The claimed similarity: Mangal Phera revolved around a manglik person — someone born under an unlucky star — marrying a tree. In Phillauri, the protagonist, a manglik, marries a tree haunted by the spirit of a woman.
The timeline is what decided the case. Phillauri’s trailer aired from 6 February 2017, confirming a theatrical release of 24 March 2017. The plaintiff’s advocate sent a legal notice, and the defendants replied as early as 2 March. The plaintiff then approached the court three days before release.
The hearing
Justice Patel’s first question was why the plaintiffs had waited until three days before release when they had an entire month, and he found no reason to grant priority. Matters sharpened when the Notice of Motion had not even been lodged:
“Now Mr. Saboo wants me to take up the matter this afternoon. I cannot; there are other matters on board.”
“I find against the Plaintiffs (a) on lack of genuine urgency; or (b) on merits (or both), there may well be severe consequences.”
On the merits
The plaintiffs pointed to scenes portrayed similarly to those in their film. The court observed that certain elements were scène à faire — scenes or situations inevitable to the genre of the work, and therefore not protectable. Copyright protects expression, not the stock situations any treatment of a subject will produce. Two films about a manglik marrying a tree will necessarily share a good deal.
The warning, and the costs
Justice Patel put the position beyond doubt:
“I am now making it clear once and for all that these attempts at snatching last-minute injunctions, unfairly prejudicing the other side, and putting other litigants to real hardship (not mere inconvenience), let alone putting Courts and their infrastructure under pressure, will not be tolerated.”
The decision went against the plaintiffs, who were ordered to pay ₹5 lakh in costs, the court relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar on litigants abusing the sanctity of the judicial process, and observing that frivolous and groundless filings are a serious menace to the administration of justice. The costs were directed under Sections 35 and 35A of the Civil Procedure Code, dealing with costs and compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims, and were to be split equally between a Legal Aid Cell and Tata Memorial Hospital.
Two views of it
The case conveys the importance of time. A rights holder cannot approach the court at their own convenience; they must take a strategic approach to dealing with infringers. Procrastination can cost a fortune.
There is a fair counterpoint, though. Curbing last-minute petitions is necessary to prevent the clogging of courts, but it remains equally important to analyse both works closely to determine whether infringement occurred. Justice Patel was plainly provoked by being pressed to hear the matter immediately after a four-week window had been allowed to lapse. That does not automatically mean the defendants should go free — tests such as substantial similarity or the lay observer test might have been the more pragmatic way to assess whether there was infringement.
Both things can be true: the delay was inexcusable, and the merits deserved a closer look than manufactured urgency permitted. Which is precisely the argument for filing early — a claim brought when the trailer dropped would have received the examination the plaintiff wanted.
The takeaways
- Manufactured urgency is now penalised — courts distinguish real urgency from self-created deadlines.
- Scène à faire is not protectable — genre-inevitable elements are shared, not copied.
- ₹5 lakh in costs followed, under Sections 35 and 35A CPC.
- File when you learn of the work, not when release pressure peaks.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get an injunction days before a film’s release? Only with genuine urgency. Where a claimant knew of the release well in advance, courts have refused relief and imposed costs for manufactured urgency.
What is scène à faire? Scenes or elements inevitable to a genre or subject, which are not protected by copyright because any treatment of that subject would produce them.
What costs were imposed in this case? ₹5 lakh, directed under Sections 35 and 35A CPC and split between a Legal Aid Cell and Tata Memorial Hospital.
How should a film copyright claim be timed? As soon as the potentially infringing work becomes known — typically at trailer or announcement stage — so the merits can be examined without release-date pressure.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Bombay High Court