Bombay High Court Rejects Bholaa Maker's Plea That Suit Concerning 'Kaithi' Remake Is Triable Only In Chennai

The Bombay High Court has recently declined to return the plaint in a copyright dispute over the Hindi remake of the Tamil film “Kaithi,” holding that the suit can proceed before courts in Mumbai.

By an order pronounced on April 10, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected a plea by Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited seeking to have the plaint sent back for presentation before courts in Chennai.

At the heart of the dispute was where the case should be heard. Reliance pointed to an earlier agreement that placed jurisdiction in Chennai. The court, however, found that the controversy could not be viewed in isolation from a later agreement between the parties, which provided for Mumbai as the forum.

Given that the claims stem from this subsequent arrangement, the court held that Mumbai courts would have jurisdiction to try the suit.

Dream Warrior Pictures has filed the suit against Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited and others seeking a declaration that the assignment of remake rights for the original Tamil film “Kaithi” was never completed or perfected in law and that the Hindi film “Bholaa” constitutes an unauthorized remake.

The Chennai-based production house has alleged default in payment of the agreed consideration and unlawful continued exploitation of the remade film on OTT platforms.

Reliance Entertainment argued that the dispute must be read through the agreement dated March 29, 2023, under which half of the remake rights were assigned and which clearly placed jurisdiction with courts in Chennai.

According to the company, this was the “Principal Agreement.” It maintained that the later agreement of April 1, 2023, entered into with Ajay Devgn Film Productions, which pointed to Mumbai as the forum, was only incidental in nature and could not displace the earlier jurisdiction clause.

Dream Warrior Pictures, however, took a different view. It pointed out that the April 1 agreement dealt with the assignment of the full set of remake rights and included an “entire agreement” clause, which, in its reading, overrode any prior understanding where the two were at odds.

It further submitted that the dispute arises out of both agreements and that the cause of action could not be split by proceeding against different defendants in different jurisdictions.

Examining the contracts, the court held that there was no necessity to treat the first agreement as dominant merely because it was referred to as the “Principal Agreement” for the purpose of fixing commercial consideration.

“It is Defendant No 2 who has exploited 100% remake rights and the reliefs are premised on the exploitation by Defendant No 2. The jurisdiction clause in the second agreement would encompass the dispute arising in the present case” the court observed.

The court noted that the suit is not confined to recovery of money under the first agreement but also concerns alleged copyright infringement arising from the exploitation of the remade film, which flows from the second agreement assigning 100% remake rights.

It also recorded that leave had earlier been granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to maintain the suit in Mumbai, and that order had not been challenged.

Holding that adjudication of the dispute cannot be restricted to the first agreement and that the alleged exploitation arises from the second agreement, the court concluded that Mumbai courts are the appropriate forum to try the suit.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application, allowing the suit to proceed in Mumbai.

For Dream Warrior Pictures: Advocates Gaurav Mehta, Bhanu Chopra, Deepak Deshmukh, Jahan Ajay Chokshi, Mohit Shah, Adit Furia and Rashmi Shetty i/b JHAC and Associates

For Defendant No. 1: Advocates Rohan Sawant, Chandraji Das, Tamanna Meghrajani and Pavanaj Hariharan i/b Parinam Law Associates

For Defendant No. 2: Advocates Hiren Kamod, Pragya Chandak and Arunima Phadke i/b Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas

For Defendant No. 3: Advocates Thomas George, Neeti Nihal and Bargavi Baradhwaj i/b Saikrishna and Associates

For Defendant No. 4: Advocate Nirali Atha i/b Dua Associates

For Respondent No. 5: Advocate Jasmeet Kaur i/b Naik and Naik