Amar Singh Chamkila: Delhi High Court reveals Netflix paid Rs. 45.16 crore to license Diljit Dosanjh – Parineeti Chopra starrer: Report

A lawsuit between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited (SCIPL) and Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited (Reliance) threatened to delay the release of the highly anticipated film Amar Singh Chamkila on Netflix which arrived on the platform on April 12. Back in April 2024, it was reported that the crux of the dispute revolved around a loan agreement and SCIPL's claim on the film's revenues, which was earlier reported by several publications.

According to the Indian Kanoon Organisation website, SCIPL financed Reliance's production of eleven Hindi films, extending a loan of Rs. 268 crores. The agreement stipulated a lien and charge on the revenues generated by these films, including future productions undertaken by Reliance, either independently or collaboratively. Further modifications through communication solidified SCIPL's right to recover Rs. 168 crores spent on the production of six films, along with the cost of capital.

SCIPL alleged that Reliance defaulted on repayment, prompting them to file a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 60,23,73,358. This figure encompasses the principal amount, cost of capital, and revenue components as outlined in the loan agreement. To enforce their lien and prevent further financial losses, SCIPL requested the Court to restrain Reliance from releasing any new films until the dues were settled.

Initially, Reliance demonstrated a spirit of cooperation by assuring the Court they would refrain from releasing films or transferring related rights for two weeks. However, SCIPL raised concerns upon learning about Reliance's plans to release five films, including Amar Singh Chamkila, which was slated for release on Netflix on April 12, 2024.

During the initial hearing, SCIPL aimed to prevent the film's release altogether. However, their strategy shifted, and they narrowed their focus to demanding a deposit of Rs. 42.16 crores. This amount represented the sum Reliance received from Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, an affiliate of Netflix.

Reliance vehemently opposed the deposit, arguing that SCIPL's request exceeded the scope of the application and that they hadn't been given a fair chance to respond. They further contended that "Amar Singh Chamkila" was produced by Window Seat Films LLP (WSF), a separate entity where Reliance held a 99.99% stake. As evidence, Reliance presented promotional materials listing them as a producer and statements made by their Group CEO describing the film as "Reliance Entertainment's next."

SCIPL countered these claims by highlighting inconsistencies. They pointed out that Reliance admitted to producing the film in their reply to an application filed before a Civil Judge in Ludhiana. Additionally, promotional materials for Amar Singh Chamkila on Netflix identified Reliance as a producer. Reliance defended their stance by arguing that the Ludhiana suit pleadings were filed on behalf of WSF and that the role of a producer, as defined by the Copyright Act, is attributed to the party taking initiative and responsibility for creating the work.

To further bolster their case, SCIPL questioned the legitimacy of the License Agreement between Reliance and WSF. This agreement allegedly granted Reliance the right to sub-license WSF-produced content to third parties, with Reliance earning a mere 2% commission and no share in the licensing fee. SCIPL viewed this as a strategic move to circumvent their claim on future film revenues. Additionally, they argued that the Content License Agreement and its amendments between Netflix and Reliance concerning "Amar Singh Chamkila" suggested a principal-to-principal relationship, implying Reliance's role as the producer.

SCIPL emphasized the risk of their claims being rendered futile if Reliance were allowed to spend the Netflix revenue before a court order is issued. They argued that the outstanding dues and Reliance's admission of SCIPL's lien on future films satisfied the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable harm.

Reliance countered by emphasizing WSF's role as the independent producer. They presented evidence that WSF secured the rights to produce the biopic and received recognition as the producer by the Indian Film and TV Producers Council. Additionally, the film certification application listed Imtiaz Ali, a partner at Window Seat Picture LLP (a WSF stakeholder), as the producer. The License Agreement, according to Reliance, simply authorized them to sub-license content produced by WSF, making them a facilitator rather than the primary producer.

Initially, SCIL sought to delay Amar Singh Chamkila's release but later demanded Rs 42.16 crore Reliance received from Netflix's affiliate. ALSO READ: Imtiaz Ali on Amar Singh Chamkila being accused of vulgarity, “He knew how to present bold lyrics in the most palatable, interesting and funny way possible”

from Latest Bollywood News | Hindi Movie News | Hindi Cinema News | Indian Movies | Films - Bollywood Hungama https://ift.tt/nqUO7oP