Delhi High Court summons Netflix, ‘Animal’ co-producer on plea to restrain OTT release

High Court order

Delhi High Court judge Justice Sanjeev Narula said the three defendants shall also file affidavits of admission or denial of the documents produced by the plaintiff, without which their written statements will not be taken on record.

“Thus, let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons,” the high court said in its order passed on Thursday, 18 January.

While Cine 1 Studios Pvt Ltd claimed a breach of agreement and said it was not paid a single penny, Super Cassettes contended ₹2.6 crore was paid to the plaintiff, which it did not disclose to the court.

However, Cine 1’s counsel argued that the document shown in this regard was allegedly “ex-facie forged and fabricated”.

The high court listed the matter before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and marking of exhibits on 15 March and made it clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

Plaintiff’s (Cine 1 Studios) arguments

Regarding the plaintiff’s interim plea seeking a stay of the release of Animal on OTT and satellite platforms, the high court asked the defendants to file their replies on 20 January and listed it for hearing submissions on 22 January.

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Cine 1 Studios, said the plaintiff did not get any information about the revenue Animal earned, its collection at the box office, the music, satellite or internet rights.

“They (Super Cassettes) have been collecting all the money but I have not been paid a single penny… I have a long relationship with them but they have no respect for the agreement. I had regard for the relationship and the sanctity of the contract, therefore, I did not rush to court,” he submitted.

The plaint said the two production houses agreed to produce the film. Under the agreement, Cine 1 claimed, it had a 35 percent profit share and was entitled to 35 percent intellectual property rights in the movie.

The plaint claimed without Cine 1’s approval, Super Cassettes incurred expenses for making/promoting/ releasing Animal, and received revenues from the box office sales but did not share the details with it. Super Cassettes also did not pay any money to the plaintiff despite the profit-share agreement. it claimed.

Also Read: Ranbir Kapoor-starrer ‘Animal’ to stream on Netflix this month

Defendant’s (Super Cassettes) arguments

Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing Super Cassettes, submitted that the plaintiff invested no money in Animal and all expenses were borne by his client.

Apprising the judge of a document signed between the parties, he contended the plaintiff concealed from the court that on 2 August 2022, it gave up all its intellectual property rights on the film.

“In the amended agreement, he (Cine 1) has deleted the clause where he got 35 percent of intellectual property right in the film…. All this has been given up for consideration of ₹2.6 crore for which he raised an invoice,” Sibal has said.

He said this critical and material information was concealed from the court.

(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)