The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (September 2, 2026) ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the death of former celebrity manager Disha Salian, who died in June 2020 allegedly after falling from a high-rise building in Malad. The judges ordered the CBI to appoint a senior and an experienced officer to carry out the investigation in the case.

The judges, while ordering a CBI probe made it clear that "no one will be treated as an accused, unless the I.O finds substantiate material against someone". The order comes on a plea filed by Disha's father, who claimed that his daughter was gang-raped and murdered. He alleged that various influential people had an active role behind the murder.

(Disha's father) Satish Salian's lawyer, Advocate Nilesh Ojha told the press, "The court issued a clear order directing the CBI to register an FIR in this matter and record Satish Salian's statement. FIR ke baad hoga investigation. Jinjinkay khilaf saboot milenge woh aaropi banenge, jinkay khilaf saboot nahi milenge woh aaropi nahi hongay. FIR mien naam sabka hoga, whoever Satish Salian thinks is responsible." The list also includes the name of actor Sooraj Pancholi.

In an exclusive conversation with Bombay Times, Sooraj Pancholi stated, "I spoke to you for your Bombay Times report in 2020 and I repeat, I didn't know who Disha Salian is, never met her in my life, never spoke to her on the phone, never attended any event or party of hers. In my previous legal battle, I learnt my lesson that keeping quiet does not help. Silence cost me as people spread misinformation on social media. Even this time, my family doesn't want me to speak up. They want me to stay away from all this. I am focussing on my career in films but I don’t want to be the soft target anymore. I don’t want to be dragged into this without any proof and subjected to that trauma all over again.”

The actor revealed, “I voluntarily gave my statement to the CBI and the Malvani police in 2021 about Disha Salian. I have never met her in my life. I have no connection with her whatsoever. I want her father to get justice. If there’s any evidence against me, please put me behind bars but if there isn’t, you need to stop dragging me unnecessarily. It’s unfair. I don’t care who is accused, who isn’t, I have nothing to do with her case, and I am ready to give as many statements as needed. The biggest lesson I have learnt is to speak up. People need to stop portraying me as a villain. I cannot revisit that trauma and perception warfare.”

The Bombay High Court has restrained media organizations and online platforms from referring to the 'Ashirwad' bungalow in Bandra, once owned by late Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna, as "cursed," "haunted," or "unlucky".

Justice Arif S Doctor, in an interim order passed on July 24, said that such descripitons were prima facie defamatory, and violated the plaintiff's fundamental right to live peacefully and in dignity.

Shashi Shetty, a businessman who purchased the iconic bungalow some years ago, moved the court after coming across numerous articles, posts and videos on the internet that labeled the property as "haunted," "cursed," and "ill-omened".

Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, representing Shetty, told the court that he constructed a new house after demolishing the original bungalow, but did not change the name. The new house is also called Ashirwad, the lawyer said.

The petitioner pointed out that the website Indiadotcom recently published an article titled '19 Real Haunted Houses in India That Will Give You A Cold Sweat', in which Ashirwaad Bungalow was also listed.

The judge held that the owner was "wholly justified" in seeking an interim relief. "The material, in my prima facie view, is clearly defamatory of the plaintiff so as to suggest that he lives in a haunted and so-called cursed bungalow," the order noted.

Further, it would also clearly impinge upon the Shetty's "right to live peacefully and in dignity", the HC said. The judge also noted that none of the respondents appeared before the court to justify or defend their publications.

"Therefore, in my prima facie view, clearly such publications would be wholly unjustified and in the nature of creating sensationalism, at the cost to the plaintiff and for no fault of his," the court held.

The ad-interim relief will continue until the next hearing on August 21, 2026.

The Bombay High Court has declined to grant urgent interim relief sought by Puja Films, now known as Puja Entertainment (India) Ltd, which had approached the court seeking orders against the release of the film Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai and the use of two songs featured in it.

The matter came up before Vacation Court Judge Farhan P Dubash on June 3. Puja Entertainment had filed an interim application seeking various urgent directions concerning the film, which is scheduled for theatrical release on June 5. The dispute specifically relates to two songs, Chunnari Chunnari and Ishq Sona Hai, which form part of the film’s soundtrack.

During the hearing, the court was informed that the plaintiff had already initiated legal proceedings in Bihar. Puja Entertainment had filed Title Suit No 137 of 2026 before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Katihar on April 27, seeking substantially similar reliefs concerning the same film and songs. In those proceedings, the trial court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim order on May 6 directing parties to maintain status quo.

The order triggered further litigation, with the defendants approaching the Patna High Court by filing a civil miscellaneous petition. The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court. On May 22, the apex court stayed the Katihar court’s ex-parte order while directing that the pending proceedings before the Patna High Court be decided on their own merits.

Justice Dubash noted that the pleadings before the Bombay High Court did not disclose what transpired thereafter before the Patna High Court. Instead, the plaintiff stated that it had applied before the Bihar trial court seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to initiate proceedings before the Bombay High Court. However, despite filing such an application more than a week earlier, no order permitting withdrawal had been obtained.

Appearing for defendants 1 to 6, senior advocate Ravi Kadam strongly opposed the plea. He submitted that the plaintiff had been aware of the film and its impending release since at least November 2025 but chose to approach the court at the eleventh hour. Kadam argued that the plaintiff was guilty of forum shopping and had failed to explain the delay in seeking relief.

The defendants further highlighted the massive scale of the film’s release. According to submissions recorded by the court, nearly 1,900 cinemas and about 3,000 screens across India had already been booked for the film. Additionally, approximately 725 cinemas and 1,100 screens in over 70 countries had been reserved for overseas screenings.

Senior advocate Ashish Kamat, appearing for another defendant, supported the objections and sought time to place the defendants’ response on record. Taking into account the pendency of the Bihar proceedings, the absence of any order permitting withdrawal of the earlier suit, the delay in approaching the Bombay High Court and the imminent worldwide release of the film, Justice Dubash held that the court was not inclined to entertain the urgent application. The court therefore declined to grant any immediate relief that could affect the release of the film or the two songs and directed that the matter be placed before the regular bench on June 8, 2026, with liberty to the defendants to file their replies before the next hearing.

Sixteen years after a complaint over a joke on the show Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo led to a case against actor and TV host Shekhar Suman and comedian Bharti Singh, the Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR, bringing relief to the two artistes.

The case dated back to 2010, when an FIR was filed over allegedly offensive remarks made on the Sony TV show. Apart from Suman and Singh, the channel and a scriptwriter were also named as accused. The complaint, filed by a representative of Raza Academy, alleged that Singh had cracked a joke about a Quranic verse on the show, and that Suman, who was associated with the episode, had repeated the verse.

The court has now clarified that the role attributed to Shekhar and Bharti was “too remote” to bring them within the alleged offences, and that no material had been found to show deliberate or malicious intent on their part.

Reacting to the verdict, Suman tells us, “I did not even know about it. It was Bharti who had said something innocuously, with no religious connotation. I wasn’t even part of it, but was unnecessarily dragged into the matter to gain publicity.”

The actor says he is relieved by the court’s decision. “I’m extremely thankful to the honourable judge who trashed the case,” he says, adding that he was unaware the matter was still going on. “It came as a surprise. I had long forgotten about it. I wasn’t sent a notice or asked to appear for my stand. Thank God for that. Imagine how some people waste the precious time of court and hassle innocent citizens. Justice prevails.”

Veteran playback singer Kumar Sanu earlier this year secured a significant legal victory in a defamation suit filed against his ex-wife Rita Bhattacharya. In January, the Bombay High Court restrained from giving any contentious interviews about him, bringing relief to the singer after a prolonged legal battle.

Speaking about the judgement, Sanu expressed a sense of closure and emphasized the importance of maintaining dignity in personal matters. “We have decided that no one will throw mud at each other. Personal life is personal and it should not be made public. I don’t feel anyone has the right to defame someone just like that,” he said.

Highlighting the emotional toll of such allegations, the singer added, “Whatever I am today, I struggled for 40 years to reach this place. I made my name. If someone tries to defame me in a minute, that is not right. That’s why I went to court,” he stated.

On the professional front, Sanu remains content with his journey in the music industry. He is glad to see his classic songs resonate with younger audiences. “It’s wonderful to see those songs being performed on television shows. The younger generation is rediscovering them, and we should be happy that our music is still being played even after 40 years,” he said.

The singer continues to be busy with recordings, live performances and focusing on his official YouTube channel. “The biggest thing is that my channel releases two new songs every month. That keeps me very busy,” he shared.

Sanu also commented on reports surrounding Arijit Singh potentially stepping back from the spotlight. Calling it a personal decision, he said, “That is his choice. This is not the age of retirement, but whatever decision he has taken, it takes a lot of courage.”

Days after the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to actor-politician Shatrughan Sinha by restraining certain websites, social media accounts, AI-linked entities, and others from misusing and exploiting his personality rights, his lawyer explains what the order entails and why it was necessary.

“Various forms of illegal exploitation of his persona were being done for commercial gain. This included merchandise being sold on online platforms without his permission, such as mugs, fridge magnets, etc. People were making money out of it.”

Hiren Kamod, counsel and IP expert, Bombay HC, tells us. He adds, “There were a lot of fake profiles in his name. The third infringement was distorting his pictures to make GIFs and memes. There was also pornographic material on which his face was morphed. We wanted to curtail this rampant usage.”

However, this order does not stop comics from mimicking Shatrughan and his iconic dialogue, ‘Khamosh’. Kamod explains, “If Sunil Grover or any comedian wants to imitate him, there can’t be any injunction against them; there is no commercial exploitation. What you can’t do is sell any product with the actor’s name or mannerisms like ‘Khamosh’. None of the personality rights protection orders can stop any actors from impersonating/mimicking artistes.”

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted ad-interim relief to singer Kumar Sanu in his Rs. 50 crore defamation suit against his ex-wife, Rita Bhattacharya, filed in December 2025.

The court also passed a gag order in Sanu’s favour, restraining Rita and several independent media houses from publishing any allegedly defamatory statements about the singer or his family.

Reacting to the order, Sanu’s lawyer Sana Raees Khan said the relief protects a reputation built over decades and reinforces that “dignity and reputation are legally protected rights”.

Rita’s counsel, Atif Noor Hasan Shaikh, urged the bench to refer the matter for mediation and said Rita would remain present on the next date. He added that her reply and supporting evidence would be filed through due process, and she was open to an amicable resolution, including mediation, “for the sake of Kumar Sanu and their three sons Jesee, Zicco and Jaan Bhattacharya”.

Sanu, who separated from Rita in 1994 and divorced in 2001, is seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages, alleging she made false claims about him through social media and interviews, harming his reputation and goodwill.

--------------------------------

My reputation is the result of years of dedication and my family should never have had to suffer because of the defamatory statements that affected my reputation and our dignity.

- Kumar Sanu

Only a week after earning a place in the 2026 Academy Awards shortlist for Best International Feature Film, Homebound has come under the scanner. On December 23, it came to light that author and journalist Puja Changiowala sent a legal notice to Dharma Productions, which backed the Ishaan Khatter, Vishal Jethwa, and Janhvi Kapoor-starrer, accusing the makers of plagiarism. She alleged that Neeraj Ghaywan’s directorial venture has drawn heavily from her 2021 book of the same name. In the latest development, mid-day has dug out the list of similarities.

Set in India during the COVID-19 pandemic, Changiowala’s book follows Meher and her Dharavi-based family, who journey on foot toward their village in Rajasthan after the government announces a strict lockdown.

The documents in midday’s possession, dated October 15, has cited a scene in the movie where the lead characters and some migrant workers discuss the issues of rent, dwindling savings, and the length of the journey as they debate leaving the city. The author has claimed that her book features the exact scene where characters discuss the same dilemmas. It has also pointed to a character saying, “Corona se baad mein, bhook se mar jayenge pehle”, which Changiowala believes is lifted from page eight of her novel.

The author has further claimed that the sequence where Khatter and Jethwa’s characters attempt to go home via a special train and are lathi-charged “is wildly similar” to her book. The notice reads, “In pages eight and nine, characters receive WhatsApp messages about a special train. The father figure attempts to [go to] the station and is also met by a police lathi-charge.”

Changiowala has sought recognition of authorship and other remedies. In a separate application dated December 23, she sought mediation and claimed preliminary damages of Rs 1 crore.

When mid-day reached out to Dharma Productions, it responded with a statement that read, “The allegations of copyright infringement are baseless and unfounded, and Dharma Productions categorically denies the same. Homebound is an officially licensed adaptation inspired by the New York Times article by Basharat Peer, with all requisite rights lawfully acquired and due credit duly provided. A legal notice has been received and duly responded to by Dharma Productions’ legal counsel.”

The statement further read, “Dharma Productions has become aware through media reports of an alleged pre-suit mediation before the Bombay High Court — however, no formal communication has been received to date. We take such allegations seriously and are exploring legal action at our end to protect the integrity of our film.”

---------------------------------------------------

One among the many contentious scenes is where Vishal Jethwa’s Chandan tells Ishaan Khatter’s Shoaib to use a Hindu alias. This allegedly tallies with events that play out on page 179 of Changiowala’s book

Even as the fourth season of The Great Indian Kapil Show began streaming over the weekend, its third edition has landed comedian Kapil Sharma and the makers in trouble. Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) India, the country’s oldest copyright licensing organization, has moved the Bombay High Court against Sharma, the producers of the comedy reality show, and Netflix India, alleging copyright infringement through the unauthorized use of songs on the popular comedy series.

According to the commercial intellectual property suit filed on December 12, a copy of which is in mid-day’s possession, three episodes aired between June 21 and September 20 are in contention. One featured actors Sidharth Malhotra and Janhvi Kapoor, in which the song M Bole To from Munna Bhai MBBS (2003) was used, while another with Sanjay Dutt and Suniel Shetty played the track, Rama Re, from Kaante (2002). The final episode, featuring Akshay Kumar, used the number Subha Hone Na De from the actor’s movie Desi Boyz (2011). 

In the suit, PPL India has claimed these uses amount to “public performance/communication to the public” under the Copyright Act, 1957, requiring a licence from the rights holder. Stating that no such licence was sought or granted, it has accused K9 Films Pvt Ltd and BeingU Studios Pvt Ltd, the production houses behind the show, of copyright infringement. The suit also notes that the show is first recorded in front of a live audience, where the music is audibly performed, and only later streamed on Netflix, compounding the alleged infringement.

Before this, PPL India had issued a cease-and-desist notice to the producers on November 6. “However, only a holding reply has been received, and the defendants have not stopped playing the plaintiff’s sound recordings,” states the plaint.

The organization has now appealed to the High Court to restrain the defendants from using its copyrighted sound recordings without a licence, to order disclosure of revenues earned through the alleged illegal use, and to appoint a court receiver to seize infringing material. The matter is expected to come up at the Bombay High Court’s commercial division.

mid-day reached out to Sharma and PPL India. Both didn’t respond till press time.

In October, the Bombay High Court granted Suniel Shetty interim relief against the unauthorized use of his image and likeness, particularly through AI-generated deepfakes and impersonations. The landmark order not only directs platforms to remove infringing content but also extends “John Doe” protection to cover his family, setting a precedent for personality rights in the digital age. Reacting to the verdict, Suniel says this isn’t just about him — it’s about responsibility.

“It is just a reminder to those idiots that don't do anything without checking on stuff. It's not about being the first one to break the news. The news has to be right, otherwise it's abuse,” he says bluntly, adding, “Good journalism also gets its reach. I blog myself, and I feel every article that comes from the bottom of my heart is something that reaches the maximum amount of people.”

The actor explains that the intent behind his petition was never to control the narrative, but to protect what’s personal. “I want to protect my family. I'm not going to get after anybody and everybody who's going to talk about us, write about us, or use our pictures. You can always use pictures by asking — so it’s copyrighted. Tomorrow, I don't want somebody to use my image and make a business out of it,” he adds.

“So that’s just a reminder to everybody — there is a historical judgement that has been given. Be cautious. If you are right, I don't have a problem with anything. But if you're going to run me down just because you feel you have the pen in your hand, it's not going to work.”'All of us are just trying to remind people that we are humans too

Suniel adds, “A lot of innocent people in the country, believe that it is true. And nobody is there if you explain things to them. So, I think all of us are just trying to remind people that we are humans too. See the human side of us. We have family, we get hurt, we bleed, we have tears. We have our good days. We have our bad days. So just treat us like that.”

Suniel insists he has no issue with imitation done in good spirit. Earlier this year, a video went viral of the Border actor where he was unpleased by a mimicry artist mimicking him on stage in Jaipur.

“I don’t have a problem with people mimicking me. I have a lot of people who’ve grown and who are stars today, mimicking me — and I’m very close to them. But mockery is not what I expect. When I was in Jaipur and if somebody had done an Anjali dialogue, I’d still be okay with that. But when you talk about Dharti, and you talk about Ma, and you’re talking about my country and making a mockery of that, I’m not going to allow you to do that. Because this is playing somewhere else in some other part of the world where people don’t like us and are saying, ‘Oh, this is how their country is.’ You have no right — because I played a real hero in that. I’m not playing a character out of imagination.”” he says firmly.

He adds, “That’s why I was upset and I said what I did on stage. I’m someone who’s open about anything and everything that happens in my life. I’ve been as honest as I can be.”

Mumbai: Bombay High Court has declined urgent interim relief to an entertainment firm claiming copyright infringement by Mahesh Manjrekar's film "Punha Shivajiraje Bhosale" and paved the way for its release. The High Court has observed that the name ‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj' cannot be the subject of exclusivity in any form. The film is scheduled for release on Friday.

"The well-informed and tasteful audience of Marathi films, prima facie, is not going to be confused or deceived by any of the factors alleged, including the film title," said Justice Amit Jamsandekar, a high court vacation bench judge, in an Oct 24 judgment.

 

Justice Jamsandekar said, "Courts have consistently taken a view that if the Plaintiff does not take prompt steps to approach the Court, the Court will not be inclined to grant ad-interim relief, particularly when this is about the release of a film in a couple of days.''

Declining a plea to stay the release, the HC found no merit in allegations of copyright infringement made by a firm, which claimed it had sole rights to a film on the same subject released in 2009.

The court also noted that given the film's scheduled release date, there was a "gross and inordinate delay" in approaching the court, which was unexplained and "calculative," and intended to put the court and the filmmaker under pressure.

The intellectual property rights infringement suit against Manjrekar's film was filed on Oct 10. The HC found it difficult to accept the claim by Everest Entertainment LLP that Marathi audiences would think the film was a sequel to the film it produced, "Mee Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy."

"From the record, it appears that the film produced by the defendants is an entirely new work," the judge said, adding the firm cannot claim goodwill or exclusivity for the names ‘Shivajiraje Bhosale' or ‘Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.'

Rejecting immediate relief, the court posted the matter for final hearing in the week commencing Nov 17.

Mumbai: Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar filed a suit before the Bombay High Court for protection of his personality rights from unknown persons and others infringing them via artificial intelligence. The HC will hear the matter on Wednesday. A similar suit was also filed actor Hrithik Roshan, but before the Delhi High Court. Roshan's plea will also be heard on Wednesday in New Delhi.

Akshay Kumar, who has over 150 films to his credit, prefers his screen name over his given name, Akshay Bhatia. This includes his name, screen name "Akshay Kumar," image, likeness, voice, distinctive performance style, mannerisms, and other identifiable attributes.

The suit by Hrithik, filed through Parinam Law, cites "large-scale misuse" of his persona through "AI-generated and deepfake images and videos, counterfeit merchandise, deceptive advertisements, false brand endorsements, and impersonating social media profiles on platforms…and various e-commerce sites." He made various social media platforms and e-commerce sites also a party to the suit.

Recently, Justice Arif Doctor granted interim protection of such rights to legendary playback singer Asha Bhosle and actor Suniel Shetty. The HC, in Shetty's order, said "unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images of the Plaintiff (Shetty) on social media platforms constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity.

Mumbai: Bombay High Court has relaxed the bail conditions imposed on actor Rhea Chakraborty, an accused in a narcotics case, and allowed her to travel abroad with prior intimation to the investigation officers.

Chakraborty was arrested by Narcotics Control Bureau on Sept 8, 2020, along with her brother and others, on allegations of financing and procuring drugs for late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s consumption. While granting bail, the trial court had imposed a condition that Chakraborty should not leave the country without prior permission from the special judge.

In HC, Chakraborty’s lawyers contended that she is required to travel abroad for work and had to forgo assignments because of the delay in obtaining prior permission. They also said the chargesheet has already been submitted and pointed out that similar relaxation was granted to eight co-accused in the case.

The prosecution objected saying Chakraborty should not be given special treatment because she is a celebrity, and she may not return to the country. She is also a flight risk, prosecution alleged.

HC, however, said that Chakraborty has cooperated with the trial till date and has not been found violating any bail conditions and has always returned from abroad whenever she has travelled with permission.

“Before travelling abroad, she shall inform the prosecuting agency and furnish her complete itinerary at least four days before her departure... She is also directed to give her phone number to the prosecuting agency and keep her phone switched on at all times. She shall also intimate the prosecuting agency on her return to India,” HC said.

Mumbai: Bombay High Court recently granted interim relief to singer and composer Sonu Nigam against the unauthorized use of his name and its alleged commercial exploitation on social media. The HC, on Nigam’s plea to restrain a social media user from passing off as him, limited the relief sought only to restrain the man, a resident of Bihar, from using Sonu Nigam as a display or account name on social media platforms.

The HC said that even a celebrity is entitled to protect his privacy and prevent posts on social media that violate such a right. In an interim order, the HC observed that a person named Sonu Nigam Singh using ‘Sonu Nigam’ as his display name on his social media account is causing misrepresentation, and it amounts to the tort of passing off and is liable to be restrained.

“I am of the view that the unauthorized use and/or commercial exploitation of (Sonu Nigam’s) name by … have not only associated the name and persona with ignoble acts but have also severely damaged (Nigam’s),” Justice Riyaz Chagla said in a July 11 order, made available on Tuesday. Nigam's right to privacy, which includes a right to be let alone, is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Chagla added.

The singer went off X earlier known as Twitter in 2017.

Sonu Nigam, through Parinam Law, filed an infringement suit under the Intellectual Property Law and sought ex-parte relief (without notice to the defendants) to protect his personality rights—his own name, image, photograph, likeness, and persona—against misrepresentation, misuse of all hues, as well as unauthorized and unlicensed commercial exploitation online, as well as an act of misrepresentation to others, a civil wrong of ‘passing off.’ Nigam said in June 2024 he learnt of a profile created by a person called ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’ from Bihar, on social media using only ‘Sonu Nigam’ and had over 92,000 followers, including prominent national leaders “possibly under the misconception” of it being his account.

Nigam’s suit cites certain posts that were controversial, causing him (Singer Nigam) to receive public backlash. It said the name ‘Sonu Nigam’ has acquired immense goodwill and reputation and is thus entitled to the protection of his distinctive name. Justice Chagla observed the well-settled principle and said, “while every citizen has a right to freedom of speech and expression, …(it) is not an unbridled or unfettered right.”

Former celebrity manager Disha Salian died by suicide and no foul play has been found in her death, the Mumbai police have submitted to the Bombay High Court, even as her father Satish Salian reiterated she was gangraped and murdered.

Disha had jumped off the window of a flat out of her own volition, and the postmortem report mentions no signs of sexual and/or physical assault on the deceased, the police said in an affidavit filed before the HC last month. She was under tremendous mental stress due to a dispute with her family and also because her business deals were not working out, the affidavit added.

The former celebrity manager died on June 8, 2020, after falling off the 14th floor of a residential building in Malad. Satish filed a petition in the HC in March this year, seeking a probe by the CBI into his daughter’s death and an FIR against Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray. In the plea, he alleged that she was raped and murdered, and subsequently, there was a politically orchestrated cover-up.

The petition came up for hearing on Wednesday before an HC bench, which posted it for further hearing on July 16.

The Malvani police first probed the case and in their affidavit said Disha had died by suicide due to  mental stress, a dispute with her family, and because her business deals were not working out. She was drunk at the time of the incident, and even her fiancé, who was with her at the time, had ruled out any foul play or suspicion. Even her postmortem report does not indicate anything suspicion about the death, the affidavit said.

The police also said the contentions raised by Satish in his plea were baseless and unfounded. “The postmortem report is conclusive in nature and mentions no signs of sexual and/or physical assault,” the affidavit said.

It also claimed that after the closure report was filed, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was set up to further probe the case and that even the SIT’s findings are coherent with the earlier findings of the police. “However, further investigation is still being carried out,” it said.

Satish, in an application submitted on Wednesday, however, said once information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is received, the police must register an FIR and then probe it. He said the SIT has been probing a serious case of gangrape and murder without first registering an FIR, which is grossly illegal.

There has been willful disobedience of the court order as an affidavit was sought from the Maharashtra government and not the police, he claimed.

Aaditya Thackeray also filed an application, seeking to intervene in the matter and urged the HC to grant him a hearing before passing any order.

Mumbai: The legacy of a yesteryear Bollywood power couple, long deceased, has come back to haunt 162 families of a posh Pali Hill housing society, who were recently directed to vacate their premises within six months by a local court.

In 1959, legendary actor Meena Kumari and her husband, film director Kamal Amrohi, jointly purchased a 2.5-acre Pali Hill plot for a reported Rs 5 lakh and leased it to a developer, who constructed five buildings named Cozihom Cooperative Housing Society.

The dispute arose in the early 1970s when the late Kamal Amrohi accused the society of not paying full rent for the leased land (Rs 8,835 per month). The society then said it decided to pay less because part of the land did not belong to the landowner.

In 1991, Kamal Amrohi filed a suit for eviction and possession of the land because of arrears of rent amounting to Rs 66,060. He died two years later, and his children continued the legal battle. Last month, the small causes court, Bandra, on April 23, 2025, ruled in favour of Tajdar Amrohi, son of Kamal Amrohi, and a builder, Arham Land Developers. "We won the case. The society has been asked to vacate within six months," he told TOI.

Cozihom residents said the society will move the Bombay High Court next month to challenge the eviction order, which will displace 162 families, mostly senior citizens, who bought apartments here more than 50 years ago. "The society has already cleared all the pending rent dues with interest and has been depositing the amount in an escrow account for the past two decades," they said. "The entire case only pertained to the land, not the buildings built on it. We will be pointing this out in our appeal before the high court,'' they added.

"The defendant did not pay the rent as per the agreed rate of Rs 8,835 for 1 April 1971 to February 1972. It is admitted that thereafter, the defendant paid rent at Rs 7,000. It is admitted that the plaintiff served notice dated 30 November 1990, but the defendant did not comply with the notice and failed to avail the benefit available under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act," said the court.

The court also referred to the covenant of indenture of lease clause 14(a): "If at any time during the said term hereby created the lessees dispute or challenge the lessor's right to recover the agreed rent of Rs 8,355 under any law or on any ground, the lessors shall be entitled by notice in writing to forthwith terminate this lease. In which case, the lessors shall be entitled to re-enter and take possession of the demised land together with the building and structures standing thereon, and this demise shall stand forfeited and this lease shall stand surrendered and dissolved, and the lessees shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever."

"It is unambiguous that upon the determination of the lease, the lessor is entitled to possession of the land together with the building and structure. The suit land was given with specific covenants for the construction of buildings. The duties and objections of lessor and lessee were agreed upon by the parties. The defendant failed to pay the contractual rent regularly," said the court, which refused the society's plea to stay the order.

"We are of the considered opinion that there is no need to grant a stay. At present, there are no immediate dire consequences from the judgment and decree. The reasonable and sufficient period of six months has already been granted to the defendant. Meanwhile, the parties can approach the competent court by way of a proper proceeding. Hence, we do not think it proper and justified to grant a stay to the judgment and decree passed today. Hence, the request is rejected," said the appellate bench of the small causes court, Bandra.

Meanwhile, the builder, Arham Land Developers, contended that it purchased the land from Tajdar Amrohi for Rs 5 crore and acquired rights and benefits in the 9,849 sq m land together with three buildings by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 19 May 2010. Property consultant Ashok Narang said the value of the Pali Hill plot is in excess of Rs 1,000 crore.

Mumbai: In a set back for the Rajkummar Rao starrer Bombay High Court on Friday stayed the forthcoming release of a court room drama granting interim relief to PVR Inox Ltd which sought the stay claiming violation of a contract for its release in theatres.

PVR moved the HC for a special hearing citing urgency. Through senior counsel Dinyar Madon and advocate Darshan Mehta it said unless the scheduled release is stayed its claim would be rendered infructuous. Madon said the urgency was because Maddock Films Pvt Ltd and others who produced the film had only on a day earlier terminated an Agreement dated 6th May 2025 by which it agreed to release the film “Bhool Chuk Maaf” in PVR theatres in India on 9th May 2025.

Under the agreement Maddock had to also keep a minimum eight weeks hold back from the First Theatrical Release Date in India till the date of release on OTT platforms. He submitted that PVR spent on promotions and also had prior bookings for the May 9 release but now the film was to be release instead on OTT on May 16. Maddock through senior counsel Venkatesh Dhond and advocate Ameet Naik opposed the application for the grant of urgent reliefs.

Dhond first submitted that not only had PVR misconstrued the Agreement, the 8 week restraint clause would kick in only if the film was to be theatrically released.

He said since the producers have now decided not to release the film in theatres, in view of the heightened security presently prevalent across the nation and in particular in the Northern part of the Country, there was nothing to prevent its release on other platforms.

Justice Arif Doctor who heard the matter after applying the law of contract to the facts of the dispute said PVR made had in keeping its end of the obligations, taken steps and incurred costs towards marketing and advertising the release of the film in its theatres and sold tickets and “any such last minute cancellation would also affect (the theatre’s )reputation and goodwill.”

Besides arguments that owner of the film can decide where to release is “also plainly untenable,” as it had no right to breach a concluded Agreement. The HC order made available on Saturday restrained the film’s release and sought a reply from Maddock and film’s owner in two weeks. It will next hear the matter on June 16.

-------------------------------------

The makers of Bhool Chuk Maaf have been sued by PVR INOX cinemas. The cinema chain is seeking a “stay on the OTT release and damages of Rs. 60 crore” at the Bombay High Court.

A source says, “The cinema chain has requested the court to stay the OTT release. The film should be released in cinemas first, and then on OTT after eight weeks, as per the initial arrangement.” The court has already heard both the parties – the cinema chain and the producers and will issue its order on Monday. Attempts were made to contact the producers, but there was no response till the time of going to press. 

“PVR INOX has approached the court to set an example against unethical practices,” says an exhibitor, explaining, “If others follow this route of skipping theatrical release last minute, cinemas will have no films to show.”

A source adds, “If the film had been released theatrically, it wouldn’t have been eligible for an OTT release so soon, that’s why they skipped it.

 Veteran exhibitor Raj Bansal says, “The producers should have refrained from bypassing theatres and jumping to OTT.”

Cinemas argue that this is a matter of principle. A cinema business analyst says, “The producers took the OTT route because there was no buzz around the film. It was an easy way out. The government didn’t tell you to shut cinemas. As of now, there is no advisory. If you opt out after giving hope to cinemas for nearly a month with promotions, you must be held accountable.” 

After the trailer for Bhool Chuk Maaf played in cinemas for months, the film took an unexpected turn just two days before its release. Producer Dinesh Vijan’s Maddock Films and Amazon MGM Studios announced that the romantic comedy would bypass theatres and head straight to Prime Video on May 16, citing “heightened security drills across the nation.”

Following the closure report in the Sushant Singh Rajput case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), filed after four and a half years, the petition filed by Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, before the Bombay High Court is facing backlash. The petition, filed five years after Disha’s death, alleges that she was murdered and that her death is linked to Rajput’s, claiming both were killed in a similar manner.

The CBI’s closure report stated that there was no foul play involved in Rajput’s death. Advocate Nilesh Ojha, representing Disha’s father, clarified that the closure report does not have any bearing on the gang rape and death case of Disha.

Addressing supports of Rajput, Ojha said, “Warm greetings to all of you who have relentlessly stood for truth, justice, and accountability in the case of the mysterious deaths of our beloved Sushant Singh Rajput and Disha Salian. Today, news has surfaced that the CBI has filed a closure report in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case. Firstly, this news is yet to be confirmed by the CBI.”

He continued, “Even if it is true, this development has caused disappointment, confusion, and a sense of betrayal among many supporters and citizens who have fought for a fair and thorough investigation.”

Talking about the legal aspects, he said, “A closure report filed by any investigative agency, including the CBI, does not amount to acquittal or final disposal of the case. Its acceptance depends entirely upon judicial scrutiny and the satisfaction of the court. In fact, the Indian judiciary has time and again rejected closure reports and directed further investigation or even proceeded to take cognisance of the offences despite the closure plea.”

Ojha further assured supporters, saying, “Let me assure you all that we are not at the end of the road. On the contrary, this is just another legal hurdle that we are prepared to tackle with full force. We are filing a protest petition before the court challenging the closure report, seeking further investigation by another agency or SIT under judicial supervision, initiating prosecution against CBI officials under sections 218, 192, 193, and 120(B) of the IPC for dereliction of duty, suppression of material facts, or filing a false and misleading report before the court. We will also continue the legal battle for an independent inquiry into larger conspiracies, custodial interference, and procedural lapses.”

He emphasized that even if the two cases are interconnected in certain aspects, they nonetheless constitute distinct and serious criminal offences. 

 

“As per the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence, each case must be investigated, assessed, and adjudicated independently, based exclusively on the evidence available in that particular case,” he said.

Ojha reiterated that the alleged closure report—assuming it pertains to the Sushant Singh Rajput case—has no bearing whatsoever, nor does it confer any legal advantage upon the accused persons.

The Bombay High Court has expedited the divorce of Indian cricketer Yuzvendra Chahal (34) and actor-choreographer Dhanashree Verma (28) in light of his participation in the upcoming season of the Indian Premier League (IPL). Justice Madhav Jamdar on Wednesday ordered a family court to decide on the case today.

The cricketer will play for Punjab Kings in IPL 2025 and the opening ceremony will take place on March 22. The court has ordered that the divorce procedure must speed up and be finalized before that.

The former couple, who has been living separately for over two and a half years, filed for divorce citing “compatibility issues”. They also asked the court to waive off the six-month cooling-off period.

On February 20, the family court had denied the request, citing Yuzvendra’s only partial compliance with the terms of the settlement between parties. He had agreed to pay Rs. 4.75 crore in alimony, but had only paid Rs. 2.37 crore at the time of the hearing, reported Bar and Bench.

The case then went to the Bombay HC, where Justice Madhav Jamdar ruled that the second instalment of the payment could be paid as permanent alimony after the divorce.

Yuzvendra and Dhanashree got married in December 2020 and separated in June 2022. They had filed the petition to waive the six-month cooling-off period on February 5.