Mumbai Court Refuses To Stay OTT Release of 'Dhurandhar 2' In Writer's Copyright Dispute
A Mumbai civil court on Thursday has rejected the ad-interim relief sought by a writer who alleged that filmmaker Aditya Dhar and others had copied his story and script.
The court declined to restrain the film's release on an OTT platform after finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish similarity between the competing works and had not impleaded the OTT platform as a party.
Santosh Kumar R.S. filed a suit for a declaration and an injunction, alleging that the defendants, including filmmaker Aditya Dhar, had copied his story. He sought the appointment of a Court Commissioner and a stay on the film's OTT release.
The writer submitted that he had communicated with the defendants over email, that there was similarity between his script and the defendants', and that the story could not be used without a formal contract.
The Defendants arrayed in the suit submitted that they had registered their script prior to the plaintiff, that the film had already been released in December 2025 with a sequel also released, and that the OTT release was set for the very day of the hearing.
They further argued that Santosh Kumar had not made the OTT platform a party to the suit despite seeking relief against it, and that no comparative analysis of the scripts had been placed on record.
It was also pointed out that the plaintiff had earlier filed a Writ Petition before the Karnataka High Court which was dismissed, a fact not disclosed before the court.
The court found the plaintiff's case wanting on multiple counts.
On the suppression issue, it noted that the writ petition's dismissal "was not disclosed by the plaintiff, that will prima facie shown that he has not come with clean hands."
On the core claim, the court observed that "no such comparison was produced by the plaintiff to show the similarity of script and dialogues and unless and until that is verified the relief of injunction and appointment of Court Commissioner cannot be granted."
The court also flagged that the OTT platform had not been made a party, making relief against it untenable.
On the balance of convenience, the court found that third-party rights had already been created, and since the film was already in public release, granting interim relief would cause irreparable loss to the defendants.
If the plaintiff ultimately succeeded in the suit, the court noted, he could claim compensation, so no irreparable loss would be caused to him in the meantime.
The prayer for ad interim relief was accordingly rejected.
For Santosh Kumar: Advocate V. K. Dubey
For Defendants: Defendant Nos.1 & 2: Advocate Chirag Mody a/w. Advocate Parag Khandhar i/b. DSK Legal; Defendant Nos.4: Advocate Sushma Singh a/w. Advocate Ashwin Unrikar and Advocate Priyal Gandhi i/b. SHS Chamber; Defendant No.7: Advocate Vinayika Shahi i/b. Naik Naik and Co.