My Client, Mrs. Priya Ramesh Swaminathan had left her service in the premier Life Insurance Corporation of India when she was an Assistant Administrative Officer (Class 1 Cadre), after 18.5 years of service. Then she had worked for 5 months in an ad agency – Pooja Communications Private Ltd. Later she founded Priya’s Vision Academy in August 2011.
So kindly refrain from making disparaging remarks about her, to defame her. She has carved a niche for herself in society by her honesty, hard work, diligence and perseverance.
On the contrary, Your
Client, Maddock Films has an unsavory track record of being embroiled in
Copyright Infringement Cases and other cases; and is a Habitual Offender as is
evident from the cases mentioned below:
1. Director Shiboprasad
Mukherjee and others Vs Maddock Films Private Limited –
Interim I.O. dated 29th
June, 2017. (2017 - Kolkata High Court)
Maddock Films had appealed against the
I.O. and failed.
(Maddock Films – ‘Hindi Medium’ was copied
from the Bengali movie – ‘Ramdhanu’)
2. A. Director Praveen Morchhale Vs
Maddock Films and writer Niren Bhatt (2019 -
Bombay High Court)
(Maddock
Films – ‘Bala’ was copied from his script titled Mr. Yogi)
B. Kumar Mangat, Abhishek Pathak’s ‘Ujda Chaman’ Vs Maddock Films
Two
cases regarding the same film – ‘Bala’, against Maddock Films!
Maddock
Films released ‘Bala’ just one day ahead of ‘Ujda Chaman’ to gain first
credit and profits.
3. Sandeep Gangatkar Vs Maddock Films,
Jio Films and others (2025 – Bombay High
Court) Maddock Films – ‘Air Force’ was copied
from an unpublished script dated 2014
‘Sky Force’ by Mr. Sandeep Gangatkar. It had been shared by him with
the said Film’s
Director,
Mr. Sandeep Kewlani.
4. Manoj Muntashir Vs Jio Films
and Maddock Films – No
credit was given to him for a
song that he had composed and written - ‘Maaye’ from the film ‘Air Force’. The credits
were given to others.
Interestingly, Maddock Films
had filed a case in Madras High Court against Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
for Copyright Infringement of the said Film, ‘Teri
Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya’. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. was Defendant No. 23 in
that case.
On 16th April,
2024, the date of hearing itself, it had withdrawn the case.
My Client says that despite being guilty
of Copyright Infringement itself, Maddock
Films proved to be brazen too! It even named Jio as a Defendant in its above-
mentioned case. Probably, it was then that Jio Studios and Maddock Films parted ways for
this Film.
5. This year, PVR Inox Theatre Chain
sued Maddock Films in the Bombay High Court,
for 60 crores as damages for Breach of
Contract, due to
its decision to release the film
‘Bhool Chuk Maaf’ on OTT directly instead
of the pre-decided, prior theatrical release.
The Hon’ble Court has given an
Injunction Order and stayed the release of the said
Film.
So it is evident that Your Client, Maddock
Films will go to any lengths for commercial
gain! It has no ethics and values.
1. To save face, one addressee of My
Client’s Cease and Desist Notice dated 1st February, 2025, Ms. Jyoti
Deshpande of Jio Studios is passing the buck on, as she stated in her email
dated 5th February, 2025 sent to My Client, that “As per certain contractual obligations,
all rights in the Film have been transferred to Maddock Films and that
presently Jio Studios has no rights in it.” So it is proved beyond doubt,
that Jio Studios was the first to license the plagiarized script for the Film
from the writer-director duo, Mr. Amit Joshi and Ms. Aradhana Sah. Jio Studios
has paid the remuneration to them and even taken a share of the profits. Thus
Jio Studios is also responsible for the loss caused to My Client. Besides, each
correspondence letter/email is marked as CC to Ms. Jyoti Deshpande. What is the
necessity to do so, if she/Jio Studios is not culpable?
All posters/promos/news items of
the Film on the Internet currently show three producers of the Film as Jyoti
Deshpande of Jio Studios, Maddock Films and Laxman Utekar Films, so how can Jio
Studios shirk responsibility now after my Cease and Desist Notice has been
received by it? Obviously, to avoid payment of remuneration, costs and damages
to My Client.
No comments:
Post a Comment