Mohar Basu (MID-DAY; October 28, 2017)

Retracting from his previous suggestions of Ishqiya 3 being in the works, Arshad Warsi tells mid- day, “The film is surely not happening.”

The third instalment of the 2010 black comedy, starring Naseeruddin Shah and Vidya Balan, was meant to go on floors soon, but the makers have revisited their decision. “There was talk of the third part. But, I had a conversation with the producers, and [they told me that] the last instalment was too expensive. They couldn’t recover the costs. As a result, they have changed their mind. As of now, the film isn’t in the pipeline. Naseer saab and I had hoped that this project would work out,” Warsi tells mid-day.

Though producers Shemaroo Entertainment remained unavailable for comment, a source from the production house confirms the news, stating, “The franchise’s last edition flopped. The producers aren’t ready to take another risk. It is a glorious franchise, which has promise. The makers might come around if director Abhishek Chaubey comes up with an irresistible idea. As of now, it’s shelved indefinitely.”

Ishqiya follows two thieves who fall in love with a woman. She uses them to seek revenge. A sequel to the film released in 2014.

His children say the movie was not part of the deal
Nazia Sayed (MUMBAI MIRROR; October 19, 2017)

A movie, which survived 16 years of filming and relationship trials to become one of Indian cinema’s most iconic pictures, is now the subject of a high-profile and complex legal tussle.

DB Realty has filed a suit in the Bombay High Court claiming the rights of the 1972 classic Pakeezah, which was directed by Kamal Amrohi and starred Meena Kumari. The company has moved the suit through Mahal Pictures, which it acquired along with the landmark Kamalistan studio from Amrohi’s children seven years ago.

The children — Tajdar, Shandar and Rukshar —have contested the company’s assertion, saying Pakeezah was their father’s most personal work and it was not part of the Mahal Pictures deal.

DB Realty’s suit is primarily against Shemaroo Entertainment Ltd, which bought the film’s rights from the Amrohis in 2015. The Amrohis have joined Shemaroo to oppose the claim because they believe Shemaroo would do justice to their late father’s legacy.

Kamal Amrohi announced Pakeezah in 1956, four years after he married Meena Kumari. But the movie suffered huge delays as their relationship broke down, Amrohi switched from black and white to colour format and Kumari became seriously ill. The movie was finally released in 1972 and it is described by many as Kumari’s best performance.

In 2010, the legendary filmmaker’s children sold his Mahal Pictures to Pune-based builder Avinash Bhosale, DB Realty and the Luthrias.

Tajdar told Mirror on Wednesday that it was mentioned in the contract that after the property sale, Pakeezah’s rights would be pledged back to him as it was his father’s legacy. He said Pakeezah was never a Mahal Pictures production so DB Realty cannot claim its rights.

“Even in the film credits, it is mentioned that the film was written, directed and produced by Kamal Amrohi. Nowhere is it said that it’s a Mahal Pictures production. So when it is my father’s private property, they cannot claim it to be a part of Mahal Pictures. We have sold Mahal Pictures, not Pakeezah,” he said.

But Avinash Bhosle insisted the movie rights were part of the deal. “When we bought Mahal Pictures, the copyright of the film was also handed over to us. Yet, the Amrohis illegally sold the rights to Shemaroo. We are fighting for something which legally belongs to us,” he said.

Tajdar said in 2008, the board of directors of Mahal Pictures unanimously passed a resolution that Pakeezah’s rights would be transferred to him in the event of a company sale. He has submitted the minutes of the meeting in the court.

Vinod Karani, vice-president of Shemaroo Entertainment, has said in a reply to the suit that DB Realty-run Mahal Pictures deliberately hid the facts about the 2008 meeting from the court. He has added that DB Realty filed a “false case” after it learned that Shemaroo had started exploiting the film rights.

Advocate Mahesh Mahadgut, who is representing Shemaroo, said the Amrohis and Shemaroo had a valid agreement for the movie rights.

Jatin Rajguru, an authorised signatory for Mahal Pictures, said the company was the rightful owner of Pakeezah. “The censor board issued a certificate in 1971 where Kamal Amrohi was mentioned as the producer of the movie. At the time, he was the owner of Mahal Pictures,” he said.

He added: “Shemaroo and the Amrohis never mentioned the 2008 board meeting at the time of execution of the share purchase agreement.”

Asira Tarannum (MID-DAY; October 2, 2014)

Recently, Shemaroo Entertainment had sent a legal notice to the makers of the film, Tamanchey, for lifting a song from an Amitabh Bachchan film, the music rights to which they are said to own. It may be pointed out that even the trailer of Tamanchey features Pyar mein dil pe maar de goli, a song from Big B’s 1983 film, Mahaan. Now it turns out that Shemaroo’s request seeking an injunction on Tamanchey’s release has been rejected.

Producer Suryaveer Singh Bhullar says, “It was actually a fight between music companies, Universal and Shemaroo. We had bought the rights to the song from Universal and they bought the rights from Shemaroo. Since we used the song in our film, Shemaroo had sent a legal notice too, but it’s essentially a matter between two music companies. Shemaroo wanted an injunction on the film’s release, but their request has been rejected by the Bombay High Court. Our film will release as decided.”

The film stars Nikhil Dwivedi and Richa Chadda in lead roles. Nikhil was busy dubbing for the film, but a source close to him says, “The makers had taken the audio rights of the song from the music company, and they have not used any video footage from the 1983 film, so there is no violation,” says the source.

The case was on for over a month, but the verdict — in favour of Universal — was announced recently.
As per the verdict, the release date of the film will not be pushed ahead.